HU: The Many Meanings Of Hu

pron, 3rd person singular, gender-neutral 1 used to refer to a person or creature who has gender, when gender is unknown (What a beautiful baby. What's hus name?) 2 used when gender is irrelevant or the speaker chooses deliberately to obscure the gender of the person being referred to (~ told me where the treasure is buried.) subjective: hu; objective: hume; possessive: hus; reflexive: huself

Why Hu would be a nice word to have.

By Jake Shivery

Introduction

As we evolve, we become more complex. As our culture and technology continue to develop, we will always be discovering new issues and topics to discuss. As this happens, we will require our vocabulary to keep up with us.

Our aptitude for complex thought is directly related to our ability to attach labels to concepts or objects. The more expansive our vocabulary, the less trouble we have exploring and expressing complex thoughts. The more that the language is allowed to evolve and encompass new ideas, the easier it will be for us to have increasingly complex thoughts. We must allow our vocabulary to keep up with us. A stagnant language or, worse, a subtractive language limits our thinking potential. Fortunately, English is a flexible and expansive language, adaptable to new ideas and concepts.

What we are addressing is a notable hole in the English language - a missing pronoun. "He" and "she" refer to a single male or female, respectively; "it" refers to a single thing or object; "they" gender-neutrally refers to a group of people or objects.

When referring to a single individual of non-specific or irrelevant gender, however, we have a void. This void makes communication awkward at best, offensive at worst, and always inaccurate.

We humbly submit a new word to fill this void: "hu", a third person singular, non gender-specific pronoun. Its variants include "hus", "hume", and "huself".

Previous attempts have been made to introduce a gender-neutral pronoun into the language; Sie, E, and the Spivak pronouns among them. None of these terms have gained widespread acceptance. We chose hu (a truncation of "humanity") to be familiar, simple to use, and easy to integrate with the existing pronouns. For these reasons, we feel that hu has the best chance at cultural acceptance and usage.

Additive Language Versus Consistent Language

apologies to G. Orwell

Orwell reminds us that an excellent way to make people think in only one way, or more specifically, in your way, is to restrain their vocabulary. "Newspeak", the de-evolving language from his novel 1984, removed words from the English language in order to shape minds to specific goals.

Real world English, of course, is much better, but imagine for a moment that it weren't. Suppose that we only had the word "angry" to express the entire gamut of emotions ranging from "irked" to "homicidal". You would not be able to form an accurate conclusion as to how you should react to the news that "Otto is angry that he wasn't invited to your birthday party." Should you leave town immediately, or merely buy Otto a drink the next time you see him?

In the same vein, why use "he" when the subject might just as likely be "she"? Why use "they" when referring to a single individual? Why refer to an unborn child, certainly "of gender" (even if that gender is unknown) as "it"?

People tend to desire consistency in their language; simply, they like to know what the heck someone else is saying. As an educated person, you might be subtly annoyed when you run into a word that you have never heard before and, if that word represents something as simple and fundamental as a pronoun, you might be, even unconsciously, bothered. And so we have this desire to keep the language as it is. But this desire is shortsighted and eventually self-defeating. When there is a new invention, should we not name it because people will have to learn a new word? Similarly, when we evolve a new concept, why resist labeling it properly?

Assimilation of New Words

Words are assimilated into the language at a surprising rate, and can be divided (briefly, if not thoroughly) into the following categories:

Non-Words

When people use the language poorly or imprecisely, either because they are uninterested, uneducated, or both, they do a disservice to the language, whose purpose is to convey meaning. Combining words, such as "irrespective" and "regardless" to produce "irregardless" is not only incorrect, it creates a double negative, actually reversing the intended meaning. Combining "misunderstand" with "underestimate" is another example. If you "misunderestimate" someone, are you not, in fact, overestimating hume?

Technology

Technology-driven words are, or course, required. We will always be coming up with words like "astronaut", "microwave" and "Internet" to describe that which was not there before.

Vernacular

"Cool" is an example with near-universal acceptance. "Cool" describes a particular state, distinct from "good" or "saucy" or "swell". This particular usage of the word was not developed in an institution of education by linguists with a grant and then released into the wild, as it were. It was created and adopted by regular people to enhance expression - people who don't use fancy phrases like "enhance expression". People have a common desire to be understood, even if it means creating new words (or a new usage of an existing word) to convey that meaning. This behavior benefits us all, as it either provides additional definition or richer lyricism.

The additive, evolving, adaptable language will always provide us with the greatest strength of mind.

Egalitarianism and the Political Angle

The English language has gone through some changes in the past twenty years, in the name of inclusion. Result-oriented approaches are flawed in that they attempt to change the outcome without going after the root cause - in our case, inaccuracy. When accuracy is the primary aim, inclusion naturally follows.

For instance, using "he" to refer to an unspecific subject is largely recognized as not inclusive. However, attempts to provide inclusion have been clumsy. "He/she" or "S/he" are two of the worst, if only because they require punctuation and are largely unpronounceable. The word "one" is unsuitable, because its usage is confined to the general or conceptual. You may well say, "One typically acts in one's own best interests." This is fine, because it refers to a person, in general terms. You would not say "What a nice cat. How old is one?" You know to which cat you are referring.

Our call for the adoption of "hu" stems from a desire to provide a term that reflects an incredibly important social shift. The jobs of mechanics, lawyers and surgeons no longer carry gender assignations, but we often make baseless assumptions when speaking in the third person of someone in one of these professions:

"I hear you have a good lawyer. What is his name?"

There is no reason to assume, of course, that the lawyer is a man. Yet we have no word that allows us not to make a gender distinction. Our language, in this instance, has not yet caught up with a fundamental change in the world that it is meant to describe.

The observant and culturally aware might say, "What is their name?" but, again the inaccuracy. You are requesting the name of a specific person. "I hear you use good lawyers. What are their names?" is accurate and makes sense; it is the word "they" fulfilling its duty.

Now, imagine that you could say: "I hear you have a good lawyer. What is hus name?" Problem solved: the built-in sexism and social awkwardness are avoided, and the inacurracy is eliminated.

Our goal is not specifically to further the cause of feminism, or any political agenda, although "hu" is by its very nature egalitarian. Our fundamental goals are accuracy and the ability to expand the possible answers to specific questions. The word is not meant as a political statement, but a fix for a hole in the language.

We like the adoption of "Ms.", because it is additive (not subtractive), as a speaker still has full rights to use "Miss" or "Mrs." where appropriate. There is nothing wrong with the traditional usages, provided that the woman in question wishes to advertise her marital status. However, in the event that she merely wishes to be addressed formally, specific to her gender without respect to her marital status, we have "Ms." If the additive philosophy were to be carried out further, we would add two additional salutations to "Mr." to be used in the event that a man would like people to know his status in the marriage department.

In the same way that "Ms." has had far-reaching impact, so will the addition of the new pronoun. The ramifications are astounding. We are frequently asked whether there has ever been any actual recorded evidence of someone being negatively impacted by the use of "he" or "it" when another answer was possible. Imagine that you are a young boy who could (would) become a very gifted nurse. Perhaps the fact that you spend your formative years always hearing of nurses referred to with the feminine pronoun discourages you, and your talents are wasted in another field more regularly defined as masculine. Is this effect quantifiable in terms of social impact? We think that it is not, but regard it a shameful waste all the same. "Hu" goes a long way to preventing this, at least with respect to how language affects the way that we perceive the world.

Resistance

Our feeling is that one hundred percent of the public's resistance to the adoption of "hu" will dissolve when the young are indoctrinated. Of course, it is difficult for a "fully-formed" adult to get hus mind wrapped around a radical change to a cornerstone of the language. As previously mentioned, this can be faintly disenchanting, particularly to someone who feels that hu is already well spoken.

But if this word was learned in tandem with the other pronouns, were it taught with no more and no less emphasis than other pronouns, its usage would be intuitive. This word was designed to be user-friendly - with little more than context to go on, its meaning can be surmised. We've tried many variations, but this is the choice that does the most to ease the "terrible transition" to a more complete pronoun system. We are attempting to aid ourselves right now, today, but, more to the point we are after the people that will come after us; we wish to enable future generations to use this word instinctively, and to use this additional vocabulary to proceed further down roads we have not even thought about.

List of Arguments:

(it's not like we're not ready for you, we've been preaching this in bars for a decade.)

Argument: We don't need it because we already have words that mean the same thing. Or: why don't you just use the singular they like everyone else?

Response: No, actually, we don't. "She" means "a female", "he" means "a male", "they" means "that group" and "it" means "that thing". "They" is neutral, but specifically plural. It does not refer to an individual. Each of these words does a fine job expressing its concept and none of them should be required to do double duty.

Argument: It sounds weird.

Response: It wouldn't if you had learned it in the first grade. It is monosyllabic and familiar and makes sense, even just contextually.

Argument: It's a guy's name. (or it's a word used to describe color, or it's something you do with an axe, etc.)

Response: English is loaded with homonyms. You have no trouble telling the difference between "tail" and "tale", "jeans" and "genes", "pairs" and "pears" - what makes you think you'll stumble over the difference between "Hugh", "hue", "hew" and "hu"?

The Plan

Language most commonly expands when the vernacular is absorbed. In other words, the starting point is not in academic circles or with the dictionary publishers, but folks out in the world who are tired of hearing their pet or unborn child referred to as "it". People who bristle when their profession is assigned a gender. People who wish to think beyond these restrictions, and wish to express themselves clearly.

Tired of those tense conversational gymnastics when you are uncertain of the gender of someone about whom you wish to speak? Try out our word and you, too, will be able to say: "I understand you're seeing someone new. I can't wait to meet hu."

Language evolves. This evolution can be influenced. If enough of us use "hu" properly and without irony, as if we always had, as if it were always common, then it will become common.

We encourage you to start using "hu" in everyday conversation and correspondence. If you want to use "hu" on your web site, feel free to link it to our handy popup:

Thesaurus Legend:
Noun 1. humanhuman - any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae characterized by superior intelligence, articulate speech, and erect carriage

human being, homo, man
lumbus, loin - either side of the backbone between the hipbone and the ribs in humans as well as quadrupeds
hominid - a primate of the family Hominidae
genus Homo - type genus of the family Hominidae
human beings, human race, humankind, humans, mankind, humanity, world, man - all of the living human inhabitants of the earth; "all the world loves a lover"; "she always used `humankind' because `mankind' seemed to slight the women"
Homo erectus - extinct species of primitive hominid with upright stature but small brain; "Homo erectus was formerly called Pithecanthropus erectus"
Homo soloensis - extinct primitive hominid of late Pleistocene; Java; formerly Javanthropus
Homo habilis - extinct species of upright East African hominid having some advanced humanlike characteristics
Homo sapiens - the only surviving hominid; species to which modern man belongs; bipedal primate having language and ability to make and use complex tools; brain volume at least 1400 cc
Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Neandertal, Neandertal man, Neanderthal, Neanderthal man - extinct robust human of Middle Paleolithic in Europe and western Asia
body, organic structure, physical structure - the entire structure of an organism (an animal, plant, or human being); "he felt as if his whole body were on fire"
chassis, bod, human body, material body, physical body, physique, build, anatomy, figure, flesh, frame, shape, soma, form - alternative names for the body of a human being; "Leonardo studied the human body"; "he has a strong physique"; "the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak"
body hair - short hair growing over a person's body
head of hair, mane - growth of hair covering the scalp of a human being
human head - the head of a human being
side - either the left or right half of a body; "he had a pain in his side"
foot, human foot, pes - the part of the leg of a human being below the ankle joint; "his bare feet projected from his trousers"; "armored from head to foot"
arm - a human limb; technically the part of the superior limb between the shoulder and the elbow but commonly used to refer to the whole superior limb
hand, manus, mitt, paw - the (prehensile) extremity of the superior limb; "he had the hands of a surgeon"; "he extended his mitt"
face, human face - the front of the human head from the forehead to the chin and ear to ear; "he washed his face"; "I wish I had seen the look on his face when he got the news"
nutrition - the scientific study of food and drink (especially in humans)
Homo rhodesiensis, Rhodesian man - a primitive hominid resembling Neanderthal man but living in Africa
schistosome dermatitis, swimmer's itch - a sensitization reaction to repeated invasion of the skin by cercariae of schistosomes
hyperdactyly, polydactyly - birth defect characterized by the presence of more than the normal number of fingers or toes
syndactylism, syndactyly - birth defect in which there is partial or total webbing connecting two or more fingers or toes
Adj. 1. human - characteristic of humanity; "human nature"
2. human - relating to a person; "the experiment was conducted on 6 monkeys and 2 human subjects"
3. human - having human form or attributes as opposed to those of animals or divine beings; "human beings"; "the human body"; "human kindness"; "human frailty"
nonhuman - not human; not belonging to or produced by or appropriate to human beings; "nonhuman primates such as chimpanzees"

At the time of extracting some of the comments from this forum there were 22 pages........

There are more comments to be posted here from this most excellent and very funny string - Arthur & Fiona Cristian - Love For Life - 1st March 2010

----------------

Here's my guilt free little secret: I read "hu" to myself as "he," as a generic "he," which under the old sexist grammar conventions meant "he and/or she."

If you see "hu" and think "he," the reading's easy, and it makes as much sense as it ever did.

-----------------

I find "hu" mildly annoying, and prefer the s/he, which, if I'm remembering correctly, was approved by MLA about 15 years ago. (And if MLA says it's okay, then I'm following them off that cliff.)

However, I have issues with the punctuation of "hu." Why "hu's" instead of "his" or hers"? What is "hum"? What is "hux"? What the hell?

I am a huge fan of hu users who accidentally slip up and use the actual gender of the person in question, and then switch back to hu. That's really awesome.

------------------

I'm going to start using "zhe."

This is popular amongst some queer activists I know.

-------------------

I like that, just read hu as he and respond from there. It resists the hu without derailing the conversation. Let's do it.

Hu = He. Spread the word.

-------------------

Okay, larry. If "hu" is being undermined, then I vote for "zie" instead.

"Z" for short.

-------------------

Someone suggested she/he/it (s/h/it) instead of hu.

Hu is dying out anyway. Kudzu is still going strong.

------------------

eh, why bother with all those slashes (which I hate more than hu): sheit works well, and has a potentially useful double meaning.

------------------

From wikipedia:

Hu or hu may refer to:

Hu (mythology), the deification of the first word, in the Egyptian mythology of the Ennead
Huh (god), the deification of eternity in the Egyptian mythology of the Ogdoad
Hu (surname), a Chinese family name represented by the character 胡.
Hù is also an abbreviation for Shanghai, People's Republic of China.
Hu state or Hu Guo, former state of China
Wu Hu, the barbaric tribes surrounding ancient China.
Hu Jintao, the current president of People's Republic of China.
The Hungarian language (ISO 639 alpha-2, hu)
Hu is a breed of sheep
A romanisation of the Japanese kana ふ and フ (more commonly romanised as 'fu')
The abbreviation HU for Hounsfield Units on the Hounsfield scale, a unit of measurement used on a computed tomography machine (CAT)
The web domain name .hu
A mantra (similar to Aum or Om) popularized[1] by the religion Eckankar as a name for and love song to God
Adir Hu

I am Hu!

------------------

Hu, A gender neutral pronoun proposed by academics. The plural is hus.

See the above line. I have not yet pressed save. Who needs to be cited?

------------------

No, we are not "back to" texts excluding women. The point is that, in some contexts, the pronoun "he" is correctly used in reference to people, in general -- just as "man" can be used to mean mankind, all genders included.

As for your suggestion that those of us who don't like "hu" are free to not use it, well, you are right, of course. I, for one, do not use it. However, if I want to continue to participate in the discussions here, I have to read posts using it. Doing so slows me down, they are difficult to read, and "hu" always distracts me at least somewhat from whatever the posters thought they were trying to say.

------------------

Hu, a third person singular, non gender-specific pronoun. Its variants include "hus", "hux", "hume", and "huself".

------------------

See also

* HU, disambiguation
* Who, disambiguation
* Huh, disambiguation

------------------

So much for Wikipedia not being credible. It seems that it's the highest authority. I stand corrected.

So does the site, for that matter:
"Hu - Proposed by activist feminist academics as a gender neutral pronoun. The plural of hu is hus."

I'm glad this thread has not yet been infiltrated by advocates of herstory/hustory to balance for the male dominated history.

History is written by the victors and men have the weapons.

------------------

Hey - we're only hu-man. And we love to argue, so yep we'll probably be coming back to this topic again.

-----------------

Forget about hu for a minute.

This attitude is what will keep us in the male dominated world. If you really believe that the use of "men" includes women, you are just [insert name calling that would have to be deleted by mods here].

"The man went to the park." Does that sound like it could include women?
"Men can go to the park." Do you really believe that anyone would think that includes women?
"All men are created equal."
"Any man who is at least 18 years old is eligible for military service"
"Any man can be president"

Seriously! It is worse to have someone directly discriminate than not include women in the discussion.

-----------------

Myth
Long afterward, Oedipus, old and blinded, walked the
roads. He smelled a familiar smell. It was
the Sphinx. Oedipus said, "I want to ask one question.
Why didn't I recognize my mother?" "You gave the
wrong answer," said the Sphinx. "But that was what
made everything possible," said Oedipus. "No," she said.
"When I asked, What walks on four legs in the morning,
two at noon, and three in the evening, you answered,
Man. You didn't say anything about woman."
"When you say Man," said Oedipus, "you include women
too. Everyone knows that." She said, "That's what
you think."

-- Muriel Rukeyser

-----------------

I will not take a stand on the use of hu. I use it occasionally in my posts, sometimes for my own amusement, sometimes out of laziness. I don't see its adoption (or not) as having any real potential to help or hinder the fight for gender equality.

However, I must address the notion that the problem with "hu" is that it is a "fake" or "made up" word. All words are made up, people, all words.

-----------------

I use "he" and all masculine pronouns because my understanding, "radical feminist activists" (as per Wikipedia) aside, is that the masculine pronoun has always been gender inclusive, and is used for ease of writing in English.

Plus, you know, I'm a White Male, and the universe revolves around me.

-----------------

If it is masculine, it is by definition not gender inclusive.

Yes, people. Change is often difficult and uncomfortable. That doesn't necessarily make it inherently bad. Get used to it.

Use of "hu" should be comparable to what many pro-choice groups feel about abortion: it should be safe, legal, and rare. Many times, it is possible to write without using "hu". Sometimes "hu" is a good option.

-----------------

I can't believe you just put hu up with abortion.

First, they are no where near the same in any way I can see. Second, I am a little abortion-ed out right now and can only handle fighting from the judgmental moral police on one front at a time.

-----------------

Well, hopefully no one will start bombing those of us who use hu! For heaven's sake, I am not intending to go THERE!

I apologize if I wasn't clear: I am not in any way suggesting that they are issues of comparable importance. The term "safe, legal, and rare" occurred to me re: the use of "hu" and I borrowed it, that's all.

Sorry, I didn't mean to step into melodrama. I am a bit spacey this morning.

-----------------

Without knowing others hated it, I used hu. I liked it.
How can something so good be so very wrong, in the eyes of others? :)

-----------------

Why do we give a hoot about the "hu"? Read it, recognize that the user is making a statement about gender and language use and move on with your life!!

Preferably without razing any babies, but I respect your choice.

-----------------

The Bored has discovered that appropriate Hu usage can prevent some strains of *!*.

-----------------

From Mirriam-Webster Online:

he:
"2 -- used in a generic sense or when the sex of the person is unspecified (he that hath ears to hear, let him hear -- Matthew 11:15 (Authorized Version)>

They also list s/he and define it as: "she or he -- used in writing as a pronoun of common gender."

-----------------

Here it is again: hu-man. I don't see recall seeing a hu-woman

In this history, you just can't get away from the gender bias of language.

-----------------

I find it fascinating that intelligent people are losing sleep over "gender bias of language."

-----------------

What part of the "because it has always been done isn't reasonable justification" is not sinking in? Once upon time it was considered good form for some people to own others. Once upon a time words that we now eschew were considered the normal way to refer to [fill in group not your own]. Languages change. The book of Matthew was NOT originally written in Modern English, partly because English did not exist at the time.

-----------------

It is support for the argument that "he" and "man" can properly be used generically.

-----------------

You seem to be completely missing the point here. First, the argument is not "it has always been ," the argument is that it is currently proper to use those words in that way. Second, slavery and the language of Matthew could not be less relevant to the discussion. In the case of Mattthew, it is the English translation used as an example of proper English that is relevant.

Finally, while you are right in saying that languages change, English is not changing to include "hu." Perhaps an argument could be made that it is changing to accept "s/he" or "they" as a singular pronoun, but that's a different discussion.

-----------------

I also started using hu, like infopri, because when I first started posting it appeared to be common usage. And I must admit that the other day I looked at someone who had annoyed the snot out of me and thought to myself, "you are SUCH a huhole." The forum has infiltrated my life.

-----------------

Languages change because people start using words differently or make up new ones. They are used before they make it to the dictionary. As a matter of fact, they make it to the dictionary because they are used. Given that this discussion is taking place, "hu" has made in roads into the English language. The question is whether or not it is here to stay, a question which only time and number of users will be able to answer.

-----------------

I could possibly see a case for using "hu" when the topic is non-gender specific. But if one is talking about a specific person, that actually has a gender, why use hu?

An example: Yesterday my colleague stole my lunch out of the fridge and ate it. I knew hu did it because hu had mayo on hus face and my sandwich had a lot of mayo on it. I asked hu if hu ate my sandwich, but hu denied it. Hu really pissed me off. Hu is a no good, lunch stealing son of a hu (oops, I mean, hu of a hu).

Now, if your colleague chair is a woman, why not just use "she". What's the point of using hu in this situation? I see this hu behavior all the time in these forums.

-----------------

Well, sometimes it is interesting to consider issues in gender-neutral terms. If one imagines the easy replies will be "she stole your sandwich because women are unprofessional, lying tarts and slobs" and you want something more thoughtful, you might use the hu there.

-----------------

Actually, that example is when "hu" is most useful. This is not a "he or she" situation; your colleague has a specific gender, and you, as the poster, know what it is. (Before people jump on me: For this discussion, please, let's stick with male and female and avoid the issues associated with ambiguous or crossed gender.) It would be ridiculous in your example to say "He or she really pissed me off." But this is exactly the kind of anecdote for which we want to hide the subject's gender, as one tool in preserving our own and/or the colleague's anonymity. With "hu," we have no idea whether the colleague is a man or a woman and therefore have a harder time in recognizing this person if we should happen to know him or her or have heard the anecdote in RL.

And before you ask, "What are the odds of someone recognizing the person and/or anecdote?" let me assure you, it's happened here on the fora, more than once.

-----------------

In Saudi Arabia you can find "humburger" for sale in the supermarkets. Because, of course, that "other" word is haraam.

-----------------

I'm amazed that you are fascinated. As I said on a previous thread, the issue of how to use non-sexist language was an issue of debate all through grad school for me. Are there grad schools where this never came up? In Arts & Sciences? Most of us care a great deal about language, and many believe that how we use language reflects how we think and affects how we behave.

-----------------

It also affects how we think, which is why it affects how we behave.

----------------

This never came up in undergrad or grad school, and I'm an English professor. : ) Really. It just wasn't an issue.

---------------

I'm gobsmacked. All I can conjecture is that you must have been at an atypical graduate school, or you must be more than 70 years old.

--------------

I think a big part of the problem, in general, is the mis-characterization of the generic uses of "he" and "man" as sexist.

----------------

I totally agree. It strikes me as the worst sort of stereotypical Left wing hysteria that gives academics a bad name.

----------------

The generic use of "he" and "man" is linguistic coverture.

----------------

"He" and "man" have been recognized as sexist language for thirty years. The National Council of Teachers of English, MLA, and other organizations long ago issued statements, as did publishers, esp. among university presses. See Casey Miller and Kate Swift's Handbook of Non-Sexist Language (I think that's its name), from the 1970s.

I'm amazed that the subject is new to some folks here.

Of course the way we express ourselves reflects an attitude toward the world, and if women are made invisible in language, they/we are also diminished in real life.

The Fiona, all for a many-gendered world

----------------

Right. Because before the 19th Amendment, men could vote. After the 19th Amendment, men can vote. Clears it all up, eh?

You can't ask the reader to mind-read when you mean only persons of the male gender and when you men persons of either gender, or a person of unknown gender.

I think I will start using "she" and "woman" as gender-inclusive terms. After all, all men start out as women, so it should make perfect sense.

----------------

The convention of using "man" to mean all people originates with the patriarchal society. Remember that when the Constitution was written, women could not vote or own property and were not seen as true citizens. In fact, they were largely seen as property at this point.

I admit that I only make .70 to the dollar of most men. However, I will not allow them to avoid including me in language and discussions.

Using "he" and "Man" in the generic is even called gender exclusive language in the APA guide. Where are you publishing that this is not an issue?

----------------

I used to be quite vehemently anti-hu. I have changed somewhat. Now I think the problem is that hu is actually too limiting. I propose a set of seven gender-neutral pronouns, each to be used on a specific day of the week.

In addition to hu and the aforementioned zhe, I suggest glorp, urm, wol, xqz, and §§§. Possessives (to solve an ongoing grammatical problem with hu) shall in all instances be designated with the pi sign. (If one's computer does not easily produce the sign, it can be numerically designated -- to two decimal points: 3.14). Plurals in all instances (replacing "they" and "them") shall be designated by typing that day's pronoun twice. (Hyphen usage shall be left to individual preference; therefore, "glorpglorp" and "§§§§§§" carry the same meanings as "glorp-glorp" and "§§§-§§§").

All objective cases shall be designated with the use of all-caps and the bold and underline features.

Obviously, xqz is the only possible choice for Tuesday, but I am open to suggestions as to which new word should be used on each of the other days.

Using johnr's excellent mayonaise example above with glorp (and adding a few sentences to demonstrate the plural function) we would thus have on every designated glorp day:

"Yesterday my colleague stole my lunch out of the fridge and ate it. I knew glorp did it because glorp had mayo on glorp3.14 face and my sandwich had a lot of mayo on it. I asked GLORP if glorp ate my sandwich, but glorp denied it. Glorp really pissed me off. Glorp is a no good, lunch stealing son of a glorp (oops, I mean, glorp of a glorp).

Do others have these kind of inconsiderate people in glorp-glorp3.14 departments? If so how do you deal with GLORP-GLORP? To me, glorp-glorp're just so annoying."

See how clear and easy that is?

Humbly hoping I have been of some small service...

----------------

Is it my imagination, or are all the people vehemently attacking hu use male?

I know that not all women use or even like hu. I'm just asking about those actively advocating against its use. Am I crazy? Or just hysterical?

----------------

Well, you might be crazy or you might be hysterical, but that is beside the point. :o)

I think "hu" is stupid but I'm not vehemently attacking its use. Maybe that's because I'm female? ;-)

----------------

To explain. I'm in no way suggesting that women haven't been treated poorly, or as a "lesser" sex, for generations. I just don't think "he" etc. is an issue. Obviously, I'm wrong, judging from the forceful responses.

I use gender neutral language in my academic work, but, to clarify, I've got an MFA. All of my graduate work was creative, so, no rules.

I'm far, far below 70. : )

----------------

Again, the choices are not a) use hu, or b) accept man and men as universal plurals for men and women. There are a thousand ways to write inclusively without making an ass of yourself.

----------------

I agree. 99% of the time the use of hu is just ... using hu for the sake of using hu... or so it seems to me.

----------------

(sigh) I just get so tired of this.

Who cares what some of us do? You anti-huers can contort your syntax into pronounlessness until the cows come home, I don't care. But quit with this stupid argument all the time. Just give it a rest. We know your opinions, we've heard your claims that gender pronouns aren't a problem, we've let you call us virulent feminist ($#@(*&@*, so just shut up already.

God. Enough.

----------------

I think there are two different attitudes circulating in this thread.

1) It isn't a problem that we use gender-specific language - "man" for "all people," for instance.
2) The use of "hu" is a silly way to solve the problem that we don't really have an all-inclusive, third-person singular pronoun.

I would venture a guess that everyone vehemently arguing point 1 is male. I suspect there probably are females who quite strongly agree with point 2.

----------------

I have no doubt that you're right that all the point 1 people are men. But your point 2 itself consists of two classes of forumites:

2a) Those who think the use of hu is silly (even if they think its intended goal is not), but do not care whether other people want to look "silly." They simply refuse to use hu themselves.

2b) Those who think the use of hu is silly (regardless of what they think of its goals) and want everyone else to stop using it.

My question was about the folks in group 2b. I'm quite certain there are women in group 2a. (Case_insensitive is one, and I'm sure there are others.)

----------------

I think the fact that this is not the case for me is why I use "hu". I agree with the arguments of the hu-eschewers, and while I find gender neutral language important I also think that a masculine "he" can still be functionally gender-neutral.

The point is, "hu" (for me at least) is just like OMG, IMHO, j/k, etc. It's something that's used on the forum for better or worse, but never enters my daily life. So as much as I think it's a little silly, it's merely that... not horrible, not ignorant, not worth putting up too much of a fight about.

----------------

Why is it wrong? It *does* sound like it was written by a sexist. Saying "I refuse to acknowledge that you feel left out when I use male-gendered pronouns to indicate all people" is sexist, because it is a refusal to take this concern seriously. Why do you think there isn't a "flesh"-colored crayon in the Crayola box anymore?

In addition to using "she" as a generic pronoun, I am also now going to start using "Christian" to refer to all religions, and "white" to refer to all races. I'm sure everyone will understand.

Also, I will freely go into men's restrooms in public places because I will tell everyone that "men" refers to all of mankind.

----------------

This didn't strike me as very passive! But then I don't want to bash nhaven1 too much because I think I like hu. (speaking of which- beyond just possessive awkwardness, I find subjective/objective uses of "hu" troublesome)

On sexism, VP, I realize that using "he" or "man" as gender-neutral is a serious concern for many people, but I think that just because someone is staunchly supportive of masculine pronouns for gender-neutral functions doesn't mean that they're sexist pigs, that they don't realize that it is a concern for some, or that they "refuse to take this concern seriously". There are lots of women who are strongly supportive of the gender-neutral "he" as well. This means that not everyone outside of the male population is concerned about it. Some women do "understand".

----------------

I think I'm going to start chronicling these arguments and write an article for the Journal of Irreproducible Results.

Honestly, hu doesn't bother me. I'll even use it when necessary so I don't ruin my syntax. It just amuses that people go into histrionics about gendered language. (uh-oh...there it is again: should we change that to hustrionics?)

Merigan - the hu-man (say it hoo-man like the Ferengi do)

----------------

Read: "I will use an invented pronoun to avoid ruining my syntax."

Monkey rage sweeping over me.

----------------

Merigan, I can't decide if you're being depressingly serious or wickedly clever with your description of a fuss over gendered language as "histrionics". In case you're being depressingly serious, "histrionic" is a term related to "hysteria", a word with all sorts of unfortunate gender implications.

As with any word with more than one meaning, the context in which it is used must be taken into account when interpretting its meaning. The "men's room" is obviously not intended to be used by everyone. Just as obviously, "man hours" refers to work done by anybody, regardless of gender.

As for a lack of sensitivity, I fail to see that acknowledging the accepted uses of words in the language is insensitive. If you follow my posts at all, you will also notice that I almost never use "he" in the generic sense. I use "s/he" or "they" (inappropriately as singular) or I say "one," or something like that. I use "he" or "she" when I know, or think I know, the actual gender of the person involved.

If you wanted to promote the use of "she" as a generic pronoun, you would have a much stronger case than the one for "hu." For one thing, it is a singular pronoun. For another, it is an accepted use according, at least, to Merriam-Webster Online: "3 — used as an alternative to he to refer to a person of unspecified gender (allow anyone to do whatever she wants — D. J. Callahan)."

----------------

Just because something is accepted doesn't mean it's right. Again, think of all the other -isms that used to be accepted and aren't any longer. Those changes happened because at some point someone stood up and said "we have done this in the past, but from this point onwards, we choose not to do it any longer".

Adhoc, I think you are very smart. I know we often spar, and I'm not trying to deliberately antagonize you. But I just don't know how else to interpret what seems to me to be your refusal to admit that many women feel marginalized by the use of masculine pronouns.

As for context, I think that you and I would probably both correctly understand when "man" refers to a male person and when it is an inclusive term for humanity. But you and I are two people out of 337 million native English-speakers on the planet (add up to another 350 million for ESL speakers; these figures are from i-uk.com). Just because you and I know how to avoid the potholes doesn't mean there's no need to fix the road.

VP

----------------

Just some basic info on men's rooms.

There are one bangers (a bowl), two bangers (urinal and bowl without stall walls), and "luxury" two bangers (urinal and bowl with stall walls), then the configurations become more varied.

None of us mind standing behind another guy in need of a bowl. But to stand behind someone avoiding a urinal in order to get to a bowl, well that is just not how the world spins.

I can deal with the justification of "hu" on the basis of " 'cause I can and I wanna". Fine it is still silly, but that at least a justification. Any other attempt to justify it is without merit.

----------------

Here is a link to the APA's guidelines for Non Sexist Language.

I think they are clear and thought-provoking, and I encourage everyone on the forum to peruse them.

But to return to the question, often the old fashioned supposedly "gender-neutral" use of he is also difficult to understand. Using "he or she" is often awkward and can occasionally create confusion. I'm sick of reading student papers that refer to a person as "they" because I find that very hard to read -- it sounds fine in speech, but looks terrible on the page.

One reason I like hu is that it is normally clear what is being said and it is far less awkward than "he or she" and less ugly than "s/he." Using hu does not make posts difficult to read. (Of course, conservatives may feel the bile rise every time they see the word, and I can imagine that makes the reading experience more difficult. But I'm inclined to think that's their problem.)

----------------

That's because you're using the subjective case for the objective. Most people seem to accept "hum" for the objective case; some prefer "hurm."

No, no, no, Trab. You, and so many others on this thread miss the point.

Sexist, exclusive, language is very real. I have given examples of that in previous posts. Sexist use of language is easy to test in classrooms, though thankfully, this past semester the majority of my students were scratching their heads asking me my point (they already got it).

But men and women are different, thank the Lord or the "selfish gene", take your pick.

I just don't like facile dichotomies, and simplistic responses such as "man" means everbody, or let's all use the same public restrooms.

----------------

Why thank you! Actually, I like "hu's" for possessive- the 's is already appropriate for nouns, so you avoid the Scylla of a masculine-sounding "hus" and the Charybdis of the dumb-sounding "hux". All you need to do is add a footnote to the Forum Grammar book that clarifies: "hu is usually, though not exclusively, a pronoun".

----------------

My point is that people who use gender exclusive language are perceived to be sexist pigs who wish to perpetuate the patriarchal society and exclude women from positions of power.

----------------

Thanks to onion for posting APA's summary. I still remember the first time I read it. It is like that joke...

A child and his father are in an accident.
The child is rushed to the hospital.
The doctor says "I cannot operate on this child, he is my son."

How many of you knew why immediately? I admit that I did not.

To me, this goes beyond hu. It is the reason I use hu. It may bother people like larryC, but it attracts the attention of those who truly don't understand why gender exclusive language is a problem. I hope you will try to think about this from another perspective today in a genuine way.

You make a good point and I would even agree, based only on the "sexist pig" posting. However, earlier on she said to me, "If you really believe that the use of "men" includes women, you are just [insert name calling that would have to be deleted by mods here]," so I do think that she did intend to call me a "sexist pig."

I actually paused to look up "sexist" just to be sure that I really did know what it meant, as I also did with "he," "man," etc. I still don't see anything I said that was or could have reasonably been construed to be sexist. I did, however, check out onion's link and it gave me a few things to think about but, as I said earlier, anyone reading my posts knows that I already do avoid using "he" generically.

Still, though, "he" has a generic definition. I would suggest that those who don't like that would be better served by following the suggestions on onion's link than by promoting "hu."

----------------

The interesting thing about Hu is that it is all about anonymity.

If you never name your gender, region, or school, you're completely unknown....

But like VP said, you can tell it from context. I think I like her cinnamon.

----------------

That [] was intended to diffuse the tension a little. I was trying to be funny and had just come over from the snark topic.

I see now that it did not promote the cause and served to escalate it.I agree that it did not help my message and in fact led people to read over the points I was trying to make.

There was an element of seriousness to the post and that made the attempt at humor fail. I am sorry about that. I should treat this serious debate in a true attempt to discuss issues and not try to make it lighter with humor.

I do believe that there are people who use "he" and think it includes everyone. The problem is that it does not on some very important levels.

There is a statistic about Latinos in the media. Something like 87% of Latino males on TV are criminals. There is a very real danger that people will accept that this is a depiction of the ratio in real life. However, at least when these Latinos are depicted, they exist. It is better to exist and be horribly stereotyped than to be ignored and not considered.

Now consider the examples I mentioned. Imagine a young girl is in a civics class. She reads in her book that men will go to space in the future, that any man can be president, and that men are smart. She may have been told that "men" includes all people, but she may not read it that way. When we mean women, we say women. Few people say women to include all humans. Why wouldn't we just say human when we mean men and women? Why don't we use gender inclusive language and keep he for him and she for her?

I was going to say hu, but I honestly don't want the debate about hu to cloud this point. Of course, the reason to use hu is to make the point I am discussing above. I agree that hu is not necessary. I am able to write in ways that include both genders offline without using hu. I just love the idea of it and enjoy using it here.

----------------

Prof_Mom said:

Now consider the examples I mentioned. Imagine a young girl is in a civics class. She reads in her book that men will go to space in the future, that any man can be president, and that men are smart. She may have been told that "men" includes all people, but she may not read it that way. When we mean women, we say women. Few people say women to include all humans. Why wouldn't we just say human when we mean men and women? Why don't we use gender inclusive language and keep he for him and she for her?

Exactly!

Is anyone here going to argue that "All men are created equal" included women?

----------------

Did you just use "patriarchal society" and "sexist pigs" in a sentence.

I had no idea that people actually talked like this in real life. You guys are losing sleep over the masculine pronoun (a masculine pronoun that no one uses academically anymore, according to the APA) while we're fighting a war?

You all realize that if you discussed this with people in the real world they'd look at you like you were crazy.

----------------

It's true that they don't talk like this in the Old Boys' Clubs. Sorry if you find it jarring to have this pointed out to you. But people do talk about this in the "real world." The use of "their" as a singular pronoun shows that many, many people recognize the problem with exclusive language. I personally don't like the use of "hu"--but the problem that it is trying to address is very real. As are the gender inequalities that go well beyond the use of pronouns and words like "chairman." (Which still gets used.)

----------------

If I talked to people in the "real world" about my research, they'd also look at me like I'm crazy. (Everyone, that is, except for my mother-in-law, who, god bless her, read my entire dissertation from cover to cover.) The fact that people outside of a university setting don't care is no indicator of whether something is important or not.

The point is that we are the ones who teach and educate the people who go out into the "real world." If we're the only ones who give thought to this issue, then I guess that means we get four years with each student who walks through our colleges' doors to convince them that this does matter.

----------------

I think jonesey was referring to the heated nature of this debate, not the use of non-"he" inclusive language, in the "real world". And that's not to say that there aren't very serious implications for this debate in the "real world", only that the bickering and overdone accusations of sexism and patriarchy are dwarfed in comparison to real issues, like war (or for that matter, actual cases of oppressive patriarchy and sexism).

----------------

I wrote this in reply to dr.cp, but it speaks to trabb's comment as well. No one here sees themself as a sexist, and everyone is against sexism... the disagreement is over what issues exactly "do matter" for sexism, and what issues distract from the real problem.

----------------

Exactly. Thanks, Hvernon.

I understand that people get heated about sexism, but, to people of "my" generation (or, at least, the women I know-I obviously can't speak for everyone) the whole "sexism" and "patriarchy" thing seems very 1970's, burn your bra, ERA, feminism to me. The women I know do just fine in the corporate world (I've actually had more women as bosses than men) and make just as much as the men they work with.

On a related note, the only people I hear complaining about women in the workforce are other women.

----------------

[quote author=jonesey
I understand that people get heated about sexism, but, to people of "my" generation (or, at least, the women I know-I obviously can't speak for everyone) the whole "sexism" and "patriarchy" thing seems very 1970's, burn your bra, ERA, feminism to me. The women I know do just fine in the corporate world (I've actually had more women as bosses than men) and make just as much as the men they work with.

On a related note, the only people I hear complaining about women in the workforce are other women.
[/quote]
Do you think it's possible that your experience is limited? Statistically, your experience does not hold true. Look at the rates of women graduating with PhDs compared to the number of women who get jobs--and then again compared to the number who achieve full professor. Look at the salary differentials in statistics. You may not believe that you have seen real discrimination. Perhaps it's because you're not looking very hard.

The point of all this is that sexism is subtle. It's not about people saying, "I think women are inferior. Let me offer them wages that are 70% of what men get." The point is that the structure of society, and of language, has a lot of hidden biases in it. The problem with using "he" is that it's insidious; it sends a subtle message--subtle enough that even an academic could miss it.

Finally, while I understand that you may be referring to the heated nature of the debate, you should also realize that there's a long history of trivializing women's concerns. ("I can't believe that those ladies are losing sleep over something like the vote when we have to beat the Kaiser. There's a war going on.") Portraying women as hysterical for raising concerns about sexism is an old, old strategy. I'm sure you're not using it consciously. But you should be aware that people who do know their history are going to react in the context of that history.

----------------

Gotta love it.

By the way, when exactly did we stop using "the masculine pronoun"? And "academically"? What the heck does this mean?

". . . while we're fighting a war" It's amazing that human civilization managed to advance at all because there has been rarely a time when there is not a war somewhere. In spite of wars, it's still possible, even necessary, to discuss "trivial" matters, such as language. Jonesey, seriously. Are you going to tell us next that it's unpatriotic to discuss pronouns until this Iraq thing is over?

----------------

I don't think jonesey was intending to target just the women with hu's comment, but rather anyone of any gender who is, to hu's mind, blowing things out of proportion. Let's not be gender exclusive.

----------------

That's right on all counts. In my ten years of work in the "real world" before beginning a Ph.D. program, in fact gender inclusive language became very important in the business world. If you think the academy is sensitive to these issues (and, actually, I don't think it is. Why else do we persist in using "freshman" if we were all that PC?), you should see law firms, counseling centers, large corporations, coffee shops, school systems, retail outlets, nursing homes...the places in which I have worked, in other words. It simply is not the case that an attempt to discuss people and issues in ways that are not discriminatory is limited to some odd notion of the "ivory tower." It is all around us.

"Hu," in my opinion, is not perfect, but it is better than the default male referent. I actually prefer Vox Prinicipalis's solution. I will henceforth refer to the default "she" and I will indicate "womankind" when I mean everyone.

NB: In my master's thesis, I used a default "he" in one paragraph, if I was discussing a generic person, and a default "she" in the next. It worked beautifully.

----------------

Ironic that the war is brought up, eh? Especially this one. Bush Jr. waving his penis around.

Men start wars, and men, women, and children die or are horribly wounded in those wars.

I've lost students in this war. This stupid stupid stupid war.

----------------

No, it's not unpatriotic, just unimportant.

By "academically" I meant in academic papers and publications. In fiction and essays the masculine pronoun varies by publication. Some (most) refuse to use it, some could care less.

Yes, my experience, obviously, is limited, and I'm not a woman, so I have no idea what it's like. I have this rather naive notion that people should get hired because they are the best, regardless of race or sex. I just don't see a university hiring someone less qualified because they're a man. If anything, the pendulum seems to have swung the other way, with white women being an easy "minority" hire even if there's someone more qualified out there. No, I'm not getting into an Affirmative Action debate with anyone on this board. I'm saying "seems" to have swung. I've never felt that I didn't get hired because of a woman/minority candidate, nor have I ever felt that I was hired because I'm a white male.

My job experience outside of academia (except for a brief foray into corporate America) has been with organizations that cared how well you did your job, not what race/sex you were, or who you knew, or what school you went to.

----------------

And I've lost good friends, and have friends who are permanently disabled, and have even more who are either over there right now or waiting to go for the first, second, third or fourth time, but to blame everything on men is just silly.

----------------

Is "she" all that uncommon as a gender neutral term? Anthroid has just brought it up again, following VP, as if it were a "big gun" that was just brought out. Even though I'm defending the more "conservative" side here (though I hate perpetuating those horrible dichotomies!), I still use non-"he" gender inclusive language regularly, and often employ "she". What I really don't like is anthroid's suggestion of switching between he and she... I think that can get incredibly confusing.

Obviously if the discussion involves actual people, gender, in the English language anyway, has to be identified.

----------------

Nah. I've only read it but not used it myself. Reading it was enough. I think the problem was, when I saw "he" and "she", I automatically thought "it's using both so it must be speaking of actual people." I'd personally rather just use "she" than both, because I can imagine a hypothetical s/he, rather than "he" & "she" where I just get this weird picture of a hypothetical Sybil.

----------------

"The use of 'their' as a singular pronoun shows that many, many people recognize the problem with exclusive language." Or, the use of "their" as a singular pronoun shows that many people don't know the language.

Would we say that people who incorrectly use apostrophes are Marxists, wishing to do away with private property?

"Men start wars..." That is not sexist? I agree that women should have equal opportunity to start wars.

I've been waiting for someone to chime in about the racial bias of language. Aint the rulz of grammer jus tools of Whitey opreshun? (Ladies, you're guilty of that, too!)

----------------

That's a good point. I think "they" has been introduced for legitimate reasons of gender inclusivity, but that shouldn't blind us to the fact that most people (myself included, probably) use it because they're simply grammatically ignorant.

----------------

Quote from: crazybatlady
Men start wars

Men like Margaret Thatcher and Catherine the Great? C'mon CBL you're smarter than that.

----------------

If this was your attempt to make a point about gender and language (which I don't believe), you failed. Your post included the words "men" and "women".

*You* separated them.

Alan

----------------

I sure did. What's your point? Can't I have it both ways? That seems to be the assumption of the argument here: that "men" sometimes includes men and women and sometimes doesn't.

I used it both ways, just as I'm supposed to according to the arguments below.

----------------

And that would make some sense, had you not just referred to Bush waging war on Iraq as Bush waving his penis around in the sentence just prior. That sentence indicated that you were not using men in an inclusive sense. So, no, I don't think you can have it both ways in this instance.

I agree with you about the war, but don't agree with you that only men wage wars. History clearly contradicts this claim, as does current research about whether women executives are more likely to wage wars.

----------------

I confess my issue with hu is mostly an aesthetic one: I think it looks and sounds ridiculous.

Patriarchy and sexism are still serious problems and I recognise that what was once standard-usage English linguistically codified existing patriarchy. I embrace and applaud efforts to rectify this -- the relegation of "chairman," "mankind," etc. to archaic status, even if we aren't all the way there yet. I make every effort in my own writing and speech to use non-sexist language and I try to set that example and expectation for my students. (Likewise, with racist words and phrases -- "black sheep," etc.)

I try to say/write "first-year student(s)" instead of "freshman/men" because I also think "freshperson/people/peeps" are also clunky.

I've seen trabb's alternating she/he paragraph solution in various textbooks and other publications and I agree that it works pretty well -- for some texts.

I think hu fails in its purported quest. English has by far more words than any other language, and although a few more won't ruin it for posterity, I believe the words and grammatical structures exist already to bring about positive linguistic change without adding new pronouns that -- for some of us -- are hard to read.

I think hu, in its preciousness, undermines its own cause and trivialises an important issue. It is clunky and inelegant and reads to my eyes like text-message abbreviations from my thirteen-year-old niece.

"omg! my bgf just smsd me & she has a new bf! can u blive it?!?!?"

I personally have trouble taking seriously arguments that employ hu. Does that make me a sexist pig? Maybe. But I see no evidence larry c is and he thinks it is a ridiculous non-word, too.

But it does give us a nice little spat to read and become exasperated over every few weeks, so I guess that's something...

----------------

Oh, I'm sorry. Didn't mean to inconvenience you. If you would please let me know when it might be a more convenient time for you to consider that we be allowed to become your equals, that would be super.

On the topic at large: I don't care how we solve the problem, but I want the problem to be solved. One of the issues we face here is that people denounce the USE of "hu" as silly, which trivializes the issue it is meant to address. I agree that much of the time it is possible to write in a gender-neutral way without using "hu". Sometimes it is nice to have a pronoun, though, and I have certainly used "they" as a singular gender-neutral pronoun before, but it's incorrect, and we ought to fix the problem properly. Regardless of whether "hu" is the pronoun of choice or not, it is to my mind not possible to use "he" and "man" and legitimately argue that everyone knows it's gender-neutral. "Separate but equal" comes to mind.

----------------

You already are my equal, that's my point. Going on and on about the Evils of Non-Gender Neutral Pronouns just seems like a lot of effort that could be used elsewhere.

---------------

It's funny, the comparison of "hu" to text-message abbreviation is exactly what I mentioned earlier as a reason for using "hu"... because this is only an online forum, and there isn't a reason, in my mind, to take any of this too seriously. I save that for my real life. But like case_insensitive, I have to applaud delljepopp- I think it's a wonderful perspective on the matter.

----------------

As far as I can see, people on the board get along well whether or not they use "hu", except for these threads specifically on "hu", which can easily be ignored. The most we see on a normal thread is a brief scolding for using the gender-inclusive "he" and then a return to the topic at hand. I just don't think this is worth investing so much into it, VP. If the controversy was popping up all over the place then you might be right, but the fact that we reserve our opinions for this particular thread means, I think, that "hu", or "they", or even "he" or "she", hasn't become a major obstacle to forum communication. I frankly don't mind if someone secretly thinks I sound ignorant when I use "hu"... neither do I mind when someone else obviously has an extremely progressive, or an extremely conservative, ax to grind, so long as the flow of conversation works out alright.

----------------

Yes, VP, please stop worrying your pretty little head over this.

I note that new objections to "hu" are emerging in this current debate. One is aesthetic; "hu" just plain looks bad to some of you. Another objection is that English is already over-burdened with too many words; "hu" is therefore extraneous. Still another is that we can't debate gender-neutral pronouns until world peace is achieved.

Really, are some words more beautiful-looking than others? And furthermore, while true that English has so many words, as yet there are none for the purpose we (well, some of us anyway) assign to "hu." What is the harm in trying?

----------------

Well, francie darling, the harm is that we might start to think more about other ways in which gender inequality is pervasive in society and start demanding other changes--like equal pay, family leave, oh, lots of things....

----------------

Right, world peace first, then that other stuff. Got it.

----------------

Yup, chase the phantom.

----------------

I'm not going to get involved in this thread (hu is ridiculous, it reminds me of Dr. Seuss) (Wait. Did I just get involved?).

----------------

Full pensive, I did sloppily go from a specific to a general, but they don't share the same paragraph. But that's truly irrelevant. You folks are interpreting my use of "men" in the second paragraph as being only male people, which is not necessarily the case--and, as so many people here have argued on the other side, isn't my intention. My point is that how we understand the use of "men" as specific or general is part of the problem. We shouldn't have to figure anything out!

And Larry, I think it's ironic that you use Margaret Thatcher, the very very FIRST woman prime minister of the UK, and Catherine the Great, who killed a bunch of people in her quest for the throne, as your examples of women who start wars.

Nice.

I guess there just weren't that many women leaders to choose from.

----------------

No there are not, and that is wrong. Women have been oppressed and kept from power and have not had their fair share of opportunities to make people kill one another. From what little historical evidence we do have, however, they are as likely to start a war as a male ruler. To state otherwise is mere wishful thinking.

The idea that everything will be different and better when women get more rights is an old one. Many suffragettes thought that voting women would flock to a Womens' Party that would initiate a series of progressive reforms including world peace. Didn't happen. It is good that women got the vote because it is just, and it will be a good thing when sexism is purged from our society. The changes will be evolutionary rather than revolutionary however.

----------------

Quote from: larryc
The idea that everything will be different and better when women get more rights is an old one. Many suffragettes thought that voting women would flock to a Womens' Party that would initiate a series of progressive reforms including world peace. Didn't happen.
--------

One might argue (and I would) that the reason it didn't happen is that the idea that men are superior (at some things) is so deeply entrenched in our culture that it goes all the way down to the language that we use. Heck, most of the women in my family have stated flatly that women have no business either running for President or preaching on Sunday mornings. Is this a natural position to take? I think most of us would say that it's not - that it's a learned way of thinking that comes from the way we perceive the world, something that is both reflected in and created by the language that we use.

It does strike me as significant that the use of "man" or "men" in an all-inclusive sense seems much more natural in sentences referring to concerns that traditionally have belonged to me:

* We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."
* Men have been changing diapers since the dawn of time....

The second one, even though I meant "men" in an all-inclusive sense, just seems wrong, doesn't it? It rather makes one stop to ask why that is.

----------------

I consider black people to be my equals. Does that mean the problem of racial inequality doesn't exist in the U.S.? No.

Just because you consider women to be your equals doesn't mean society is treating them as such, jonesey. It also doesn't mean that there isn't a problem that must be addressed.

----------------

The real question, then, is are you up to being the equal of a black person .... that's mighty white of you.

----------------

Agreed. But no one's proposing the creation of a racially neutral pronoun in an attempt to address this issue.

----------------

To my ear all generic uses of "men" sound sexist and/or antiquated ("Men have always wanted to fly"). I feel a little different about generic uses of the singular though ("Man has always wanted to fly"). I don't really know why. I suppose this is because "man" as a singular would either be used with an article of some sort ("the man"/ "a man") in which case maleness is usually intended, or if used without carries the "mass noun" sense.

----------------

I never pegged you as a feminist, but this is the whole point of feminism. Men and women should be given equal pay for the same job. Men point to the few examples of women who have made it to positions of power. Women point to the fact that there are greater numbers of men in those positions, and note that the women make less even when they get those positions.

If we had equality, men and women would exist in equal numbers in positions of power.

How many of the fortune 500 CEOs are women? The answer is less than 10 and I think it is 8.

How many women are U.S. Senators or in the House? How many of the 50 states have women governors?

How many schools still use the word "freshman"? It becomes particularly ironic as the percentage of women entering the schools grows to 60% or more.

----------------

Quote from: touchedbyanoodle
I consider black people to be my equals. Does that mean the problem of racial inequality doesn't exist in the U.S.? No.

Just because you consider women to be your equals doesn't mean society is treating them as such, jonesey. It also doesn't mean that there isn't a problem that must be addressed.

Agreed. But no one's proposing the creation of a racially neutral pronoun in an attempt to address this issue.

-------

Jonesey, I honestly and sincerely believe that you really don't understand that there is a problem, because you have never been disenfranchised by language. I am seriously going to start using "she" as an inclusive pronoun and I am curious to see how it strikes you. Every time I hear "he" as an inclusive pronoun, I first have to process the meaning of "he", then I have to stop and say, "oh, is this one of those cases where I count too?" Then I have to decide whether it is, and then I have to deliberately assert that I am included, while I am staring at a word whose *primary* meaning specifically excludes me.

If you have a single moment of "huh?" when you read "she" as inclusive, you will begin to see that there is an issue.

I apologize if I was overly snarky earlier -- I'm in the middle of juries and my ears are bleeding.

By the way, anybody who missed the latest episode of The Office needs to run to abc.com and watch it straight away. As soon as my next load of laundry is out, I'm watching it again as I fold. It was a very, very good episode.

I object (not particularly strenuously) to the use of hu for the following reasons:

1. As someone with exposure to Semitic languages, to me "hu" has inherently masculine connotations (as a pronoun or as a suffix), which hampers my ability to perceive the term as gender-neutral in the first place.

2. I see nothing wrong with variants on s/he, he or she, she or he, or various gender-neutral constructions (e.g. "the student", "said colleague", "this individual", "Evil Administrator A", or "Indigo sprite") As LarryC has pointed out, there are ways to avoid gender-specific pronouns without invoking artificial intentionally-gender-neutral pronouns at all.

3. As seen on this board, there is inconsistency and awkwardness in the use of "hu":
- People can't seem to agree on which form should be used as an object - hum? hur? Hmph!
- People can't seem to agree on how to form the possessive - hus? hu's? hur? hux? Huff!
- People occasionally use "the hus" or other awkward constructions where (the already gender-neutral) "they" or "them" would suffice. I find this unnatural and difficult to read, though I am capable of figuring out what people mean.
- People sometimes use "hu" and then accidentally let slip a gender-specific pronoun. Oops!
(I recognize that these usage difficulties represent a practical and not a philosophical argument against the use of "hu"; nonetheless, it grates on me in a minor way. If you're going to use it, at least use it consistently!)

4. I am more familiar with variants on "zie", which to me feels more gender-neutral than "hu" for reason #1.

Other thoughts, acknowledging fully that my opinions are informed by gut feeling at least as much as reason, and may be as contradictory as the uses of "hu" that I just lambasted:

- Although I consider myself a strong supporter of women's equal rights (and the rights of other classes affected by perceptions of gender, among other characteristics), I feel that this dogged insistence upon using "hu" makes its users sound silly. To me, it seems like the kind of action that hinders the cause, providing fodder for the few remaining people who actually (even if subconsciously) object to women's equality to dismiss feminists as shrill nincompoops.

- I feel the same way about replacing all instances of "He" of "Him" in prayerbooks (referring to God, rather than specifically Jesus) with "God" or "The Lord", even though I do not believe that God is male. I do not believe that tradition always trumps other concerns; nonetheless, I do not find the use of "He" particularly problematic. This may be because the use of "He" is simply most familiar to me in this context, and I find other constructions jarring (which is part of the intent, to force people to think about the status quo - but to elevate gender concerns above the content of the liturgy seems inappropriate to me). My dislike of this is also due to the same feeling that would lead me to consider a student essay with that type of language (i.e. always repeating the noun, rather than using pronouns) - unless this was done for particular effect - to be weaker than if the language had been more varied. I realize that this may conflict with objection #2 to "hu" if one refuses to use variants of he/she.

- Why all this arguing about "man/men" and "mankind"? In the future, why not use "humans", "humankind", "Homo sapiens", or "people" and be done with it? I understand that "human" and "Homo" (the genus) are etymologically related to a root with a masculine meaning, and that some might object on these grounds, but to me this would really be stretching it... I wouldn't even necessarily object outright to a student's use of "Man..." in the general sense, although I would probably note in the margin that this usage is somewhat archaic, objectionable to some, and that "Humankind..." might be a better choice. (Sidebar: I don't know what you do in languages where the word for "humankind" and the word for "men" are one and the same; have progressive/feminist users of such languages invented gender-neutral terms? I ask this out of genuine curiosity.)

- I often use "Hi, guys!" even when addressing groups composed exclusively of women, and don't believe that this makes me a chauvinist (note to self: look up whether or not Mr. Chauvin was bald). I just dislike the sound of "gals" and "ladies" as a casual plural greeting. I think this is similar to Just Dave's impression of "Man" as a mass noun - and again, I do not strenuously object to "Man" being used as a generic, even as I recognize that others do.

- I'm greatly entertained by how invested people are in the use of, or objection to the use of, "hu"!

----------------

Maybe hu originated from the huh VP mentioned.

----------------

Quote from: namazu
I object (not particularly strenuously) to the use of hu for the following reasons:
------

Nice post. If that is how you feel, you should definitely not use hu.

----------------

Although not at all the rule, the use of only "God" or "Godself" rather than "He" is becoming increasingly standard in Protestant academic theology.

----------------

Quote from: namazu
4. I am more familiar with variants on "zie", which to me feels more gender-neutral than "hu" for reason #1.
------

What is the origin of "zie"? Personally, it makes me think of the German word "sie" (which woiuld be pronounced "zee," as I assume "zie" would be). "Sie" has several meanings, two of which are "she" and "they."

----------------

And "You" (plural, I think)

----------------

What if we compromise, and no-one uses "hu" anymore, but we all use "huhole" at will?

----------------

No one uses womyn anymore, and no one will use "hu" in a few short years.

----------------

No one uses it now, except here.

----------------

This is so silly! silly, silly silly! Just use it or don't use it!

I can just imagine what my SO would say if I went home and told zie/hu/s/h/it about all of this!

----------------

Quote from: crazybatlady
Full pensive, I did sloppily go from a specific to a general, but they don't share the same paragraph. But that's truly irrelevant. You folks are interpreting my use of "men" in the second paragraph as being only male people, which is not necessarily the case--and, as so many people here have argued on the other side, isn't my intention. My point is that how we understand the use of "men" as specific or general is part of the problem. We shouldn't have to figure anything out!
-------

I would agree with that point, but if that's what you were trying to convey with your post about the war, it was really unsuccessful. You're right, it's not necessarily the case that you were referring to only males in that sentence, but it's pretty likely, given the context. Either way, a ranty post about the war doesn't really make much of a point about using men as a general noun to reference all humans. Anyway, it's not particularly important.

Quote from: crazybatlady
And Larry, I think it's ironic that you use Margaret Thatcher, the very very FIRST woman prime minister of the UK, and Catherine the Great, who killed a bunch of people in her quest for the throne, as your examples of women who start wars . . . I guess there just weren't that many women leaders to choose from.
------

True, and tragic. We need more women in positions of power, but I do believe that situation is improving, and noticeably so in recent years. Michele Bachelet in Chile and Angela Merkel are notable examples of female leaders. France came really close to having one this time around. Yet, despite the small sample size, women leaders have not acted less aggressively than men overall.

Quote from: namazu
- Although I consider myself a strong supporter of women's equal rights (and the rights of other classes affected by perceptions of gender, among other characteristics), I feel that this dogged insistence upon using "hu" makes its users sound silly. To me, it seems like the kind of action that hinders the cause, providing fodder for the few remaining people who actually (even if subconsciously) object to women's equality to dismiss feminists as shrill nincompoops.
-------

I think this is particularly well expressed, and I agree 100%. This is why I objected to the men wage war statement, it makes me uneasy when we resort to blanket statements that aren't true--it weakens our case in general.

I agree with namazu about hu in general. What particularly bothers me about it is the incorrect usage issues that namazu mentioned. The words like "huhole" are a bit annoying, too--what exactly is a hehole or a shehole? The nonsensical feel of hu and the nonsensical usage of hu bother me. However, I can easily see the need for a more gender-neutral pronoun. Larry has an excellent point about not being lazy writers--we certainly can take the time to write in a non-sexist manner. It would make things a bit easier to have a gender neutral pronoun, certainly, but hu just sounds so silly. They is clumsy, and incorrect. It would be nice to have a gender neutral pronoun, but I doubt hu will be the winner.

----------------

Quote from: hvernon
I can just imagine what my SO would say if I went home and told zie/hu/s/h/it about all of this!
--------

Actually, I did tell my husband about hu, when I first started visiting the fora. I think he's still laughing about it. You will never, ever, find him using "hu."

----------------

Quote from: namazu
I object (not particularly strenuously) to the use of hu for the following reasons:

1. As someone with exposure to Semitic languages, to me "hu" has inherently masculine connotations (as a pronoun or as a suffix), which hampers my ability to perceive the term as gender-neutral in the first place.

2. I see nothing wrong with variants on s/he, he or she, she or he, or various gender-neutral constructions (e.g. "the student", "said colleague", "this individual", "Evil Administrator A", or "Indigo sprite") As LarryC has pointed out, there are ways to avoid gender-specific pronouns without invoking artificial intentionally-gender-neutral pronouns at all.

3. As seen on this board, there is inconsistency and awkwardness in the use of "hu":
- People can't seem to agree on which form should be used as an object - hum? hur? Hmph!
- People can't seem to agree on how to form the possessive - hus? hu's? hur? hux? Huff!
- People occasionally use "the hus" or other awkward constructions where (the already gender-neutral) "they" or "them" would suffice. I find this unnatural and difficult to read, though I am capable of figuring out what people mean.
- People sometimes use "hu" and then accidentally let slip a gender-specific pronoun. Oops!
(I recognize that these usage difficulties represent a practical and not a philosophical argument against the use of "hu"; nonetheless, it grates on me in a minor way. If you're going to use it, at least use it consistently!)

4. I am more familiar with variants on "zie", which to me feels more gender-neutral than "hu" for reason #1.
-------

Namazu, this is an excellent set of reasons not to use "hu." I'll add that it's interesting to note that the feminine pronoun in Arabic ("huwa") would seem to be a derivation of the masculine ("hu") which seems rather well...Adam and Eve-ish.

Not only is there confusion in the inflectional use of "hu" on these fora but my gut feeling (based on a fair amount of time developing these "gut feelings" via corpus linguistic investigations) is that a careful look at the discourse use of "hu" here would reveal an uncomfortably skewed usage where 1) the intended referent for a "hu" would more likely be male than female and 2) the posts in which this sort of replacement occur would be more likely to have an aggressive and/or negative tone.

I think this last point is probably linked to the development of "huhole" which I think a little discourse analysis would show to be applied far more commonly to males than females (e.g. "My boss is such a huhole. He always...").

---------
Quote
(Sidebar: I don't know what you do in languages where the word for "humankind" and the word for "men" are one and the same; have progressive/feminist users of such languages invented gender-neutral terms? I ask this out of genuine curiosity.)
----------

I know German sometimes uses "Mensch" in such contexts, but then it's "DER (masc.) Mensch" so I suppose that's not much better.

---------
Quote
- I often use "Hi, guys!" even when addressing groups composed exclusively of women...
---------

I think one can show some strong evidence that "guys" is becoming more and more a neutral item, particularly in the pronomial usage "you guys." I've heard that in Hawaiian Pidgin, "guys" has evolved into a simple plural marker, for example the plural of "horse" would be "horse guys.

All in all, I view the use of "hu" here on the CHE fora as more of a social experiment and for this reason it's interesting. I don't, however, believe it has a snowball's chance in hell of making the transition to the real world.

----------------

Quote from: just_dave
I think one can show some strong evidence that "guys" is becoming more and more a neutral item, particularly in the pronomial usage "you guys." I've heard that in Hawaiian Pidgin, "guys" has evolved into a simple plural marker, for example the plural of "horse" would be "horse guys.
-------

Just use y'all...

----------------

Ah, the old dilemma: Should I be a "sexist?" Or should I be a "hick?" : )

----------------

Y'all guys gather 'round...

----------------

I recently learned that y'all can be singular or plural.

----------------

Quote from: just_dave
I'll add that it's interesting to note that the feminine pronoun in Arabic ("huwa") would seem to be a derivation of the masculine ("hu") which seems rather well...Adam and Eve-ish.
-------
Way to subvert conventional notions of gendered language there, Just Dave! ;)

-------
Quote
I think this last point is probably linked to the development of "huhole" which I think a little discourse analysis would show to be applied far more commonly to males than females (e.g. "My boss is such a huhole. He always...").
-------

I will admit I have a soft spot for "huhole". It's delightfully, tastefully snarky, and fun to say! Now, I don't know from discourse analysis, but you're probably right that the term's application is skewed towards males.

-------
Quote
I know German sometimes uses "Mensch" in such contexts, but then it's "DER (masc.) Mensch" so I suppose that's not much better.
-------

Yes, as you note, that's definitely masculine in origin - more so the "mensch" (= "man") than the "der"!; it's comparable to the usage in English of "man" (collectively), or French, e.g. "droits de l'homme" (= "rights of man" = "human rights").

It would be interesting to hear what, if anything, German (or other) proponents of gender neutrality in these linguistic contexts have proposed as an alternative. What is their "hu"? (Since, as someone else noted, "zie" is close to "sie", which has different meanings in German.)

Similarly, in languages where even ordinary nouns are gendered (e.g. Romance languages, Semitic languages, etc.), have there been moves to abolish these distinctions, at least as far as the definite article is concerned? (Generations of beginning language students would be forever indebted to the instigator of such a movement!)

-------
Quote
I think one can show some strong evidence that "guys" is becoming more and more a neutral item, particularly in the pronomial usage "you guys." I've heard that in Hawaiian Pidgin, "guys" has evolved into a simple plural marker, for example the plural of "horse" would be "horse guys.
-------

That's very interesting. I know nothing about Hawaiian Pidgin, but I have heard similar constructions used before.

-------
Quote from: case_insensitive
Just use y'all...
-------

Oh, I do! :)
(Of course, that opens up a whole other can of worms - do I need to say "all y'all" when talking to a group, and "y'all" when talking to one person, or is "y'all" is sufficient in both cases? Depends on dialect, I suppose. Language is so fraught with difficult decisions!)

----------------

I thought "all y'all" was plural. No?

----------------

That might be it. I just don't get how "you all" can refer to one person, so I may have assumed that y'all was plural. I need an English to Deep South translation dictionary. (just kidding, youse guyss)

----------------

I believe the triconsonantal root for "hu" would be "H-W-W" (W can be realized as either /u/ or /w/). Thus in writing "HU" is written "H+W/U" and the feminine is made by adding the feminine marker ("H+U/W+A").

In his fascinating book on metaphor and its relationship to syntactic categories ("Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things"), George Lakoff explores the links between gender/sex and syntax (among other things). The title of the book is apparently a syntactically marked noun category in one or more of the Australian Aboriginal languages.

--------
Quote
I will admit I have a soft spot for "huhole". It's delightfully, tastefully snarky, and fun to say! Now, I don't know from discourse analysis, but you're probably right that the term's application is skewed towards males.
--------

Of course, some might argue that males are simply more likely to "be huholes" than females. Is that itself a sexist comment?

--------
Quote
I know German sometimes uses "Mensch" in such contexts, but then it's "DER (masc.) Mensch" so I suppose that's not much better.
--------

Yes, as you note, that's definitely masculine in origin - more so the "mensch" (= "man") than the "der"!; it's comparable to the usage in English of "man" (collectively), or French, e.g. "droits de l'homme" (= "rights of man" = "human rights").
[/quote]

While you're probably correct about "mensch" ultimately sharing an etymology with "man," I'd disagree with your gloss of this as = "man."

--------
Quote
It would be interesting to hear what, if anything, German (or other) proponents of gender neutrality in these linguistic contexts have proposed as an alternative. What is their "hu"?
--------

--------
Quote
That's very interesting. I know nothing about Hawaiian Pidgin, but I have heard similar constructions used before.
--------

Now that you mention it so have I, e.g. "The team guys went over to Taco Bell after practice."

----------------

Oops! I was just gently informed by namazu that I goof up on the Arabic pronouns. I guess I've been in Japan too long! So scratch all of that part of my posts!!!

He = Huwa
She = Hiya

Must have been my Spanish creeping in there through some cognitive back door!

Sorry.

----------------

Thanks for pointing me to the more common use of "mensch" here, JD. I will state for the record that I don't actually speak German, and assumed from the similarity to "man" and the translation of "ubermensch" as "superman" that "mensch" was fairly masculine.

Clearly, I am way out of my depth here! ;)

Namazu
"not a cunning linguist"

----------------

Quote from: just_dave
I believe the triconsonantal root for "hu" would be "H-W-W" (W can be realized as either /u/ or /w/). Thus in writing "HU" is written "H+W/U" and the feminine is made by adding the feminine marker ("H+U/W+A").
---------

So again this would be total rubbish. Please delete it from your collective minds. Note to self: Think before speaking.

----------------

Quote from: scientiffikk
I recently learned that y'all can be singular or plural.
--------

"Southerners do not, as is sometimes believed, use you-all or y'all for both singular and plural you. A single person may only be addressed as you-all if the speaker implies in the reference other persons not present: Did you-all [you and others] have dinner yet?"

This is contradictory to my experience. I have been addressed directly as "y'all" when the speaker was unambiguously asking about me and me alone.

----------------

I think you might be right that there's something else going on there. One possibility (that would of course have to be emperically explored) is that "y'all" when used to address a single person carries some sort of "additional force."

And this is really at the heart of my interesting discourse analysis. There are so many ways that the ways we think we use language are out-of-sync with how we actually use it.

----------------

Quote from: au_fait
Y'all guys gather 'round...
-------

Jersey transplant? Seems like you're code switching within the same phrase.

----------------

Wikipedia speaks to y'all:

"There is also a long disagreement about whether y'all can have primarily singular reference. While y'all is generally used in the Southern United States as the plural form of "you" a scant but vocal minority argue that the term can be used in the singular. Adding confusion to this issue is that observers attempting to judge usage may witness a single person addressed as y'all if the speaker implies in the reference other persons not present: "Did y'all [you and others] have dinner yet?. However, similar arguments may be made for the first person analog of y'all, we."

"It has been argued by one linguist that the singular y'all is in reality a polite form of address, corresponding to 'vous' in French, 'usted' in Spanish, and 'Sie' in German. [5]
And a few have noted what this linguist states in the following quote: That y'all or you-all cannot have primarily singular reference ..."

is a cardinal article of faith in the South. ... Nevertheless, it has been questioned very often , and with a considerable showing of evidence. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, to be sure, you-all indicates a plural, implicit if not explicit, and thus means, when addressed to a single person, 'you and your folks' or the like, but the hundredth time it is impossible to discover any such extension of meaning.
– H.L. Mencken, , 1948, p.337

Note that reference for the linguist who suggested that y'all can be using in the singular is from 1926.

----------------

Okay, so I'm slow... but I thought "hu" was short for "hun"?

----------------

Sure pumpkin. I now see that people with *!* are incapable of understanding the nuances involved in the problems with gender exclusive language.

You have to go with what you got and it ain't your fault you ain't got a lot. I forgive you for you know not what you say.

----------------

Y'all is a contraction for you all. Therefore, it cannot be singular. Unless, of course, it's addressing all of one person...

I always cringe when I hear y'all used as singular in movies... stupid Hollywood...

----------------

case, as a bona fide Southerner (at least compared to me), what are your feelings on "all y'all" as a phrase? It always struck me that the redundancy was useful for showing emphasis.

----------------

I have very rarely heard that and then only for emphasis in a somewhat silly way... to get the attention of a large group, for example. It is horribly redundant. But, at times redundancy is needed, I'm sure. :o)

----------------

I've been in places where "y'all" was mostly used as singular and "all y'all" was plural.

----------------

lol, nope. I was being an ass.

But I codeswitch using AAVE, Appalacian English, and Academese (throw in a little Gen X & Y for flavor--I try to keep up with the kids' slang). Interestingly enough, the tempo of my speech is that of a New Yorker.

I guess I'm a bit'o'mess.

----------------

Wouldn't that be "youse guys"?

----------------

Well done, yes-sir-ee. It would.

----------------

Well, I have to say, this latest attempt to suppress "hu" was right on schedule.

----------------

I have never heard y'all used as singular. Hu, however, is singular.

Long live hu!!!

----------------

Au contraire! I think it definitely needs to be added to the Fictionary!

Yup, if you hear "y'all guys" in a movie, you'll know it was some west coast or northeastern scriptwriter writing about Southerners who doesn't know any better.

----------------

One thing's for sure. Y'all need to start using "hu" on a regular basis.

----------------

How's about "hu'all" if you're refering to a whole passle of gender neutral folks?

Example:
"Hu'all was just sittin' round not doin' nothin."

----------------

Come to think of it, I do believe that I'll start using "hu'all" all the time as the 3rd person plural to avoid the disgraceful fact that "they" contains "he" but not "she." It's either that or change it to "ts/hey."

----------------

I always enjoyed the Pennyslvania version of y'all (you all): y'uns (you ones).

Indeed, the redundancy sometimes is needed, most often when dealing with yankees who seem very puzzled trying to figure out if "y'all" is addressing them individually or if it refers to the whole group. So - "y'all just head back north now. Yes, all y'all!"

----------------

What is hu?

----------------

Mugreth, that is a really good question. But I am not sure anyone will see it this far down an old thread. As a senior member here, I would suggest you start a new thread with your question so it will attract more attention.

CHANT HU
Everyone is invited to come chant Hu, an ancient name for God. [anonymous location] on 1st Friday of every month at 7 p.m. FREE! For more information, call [phone number].

----------------

I want the record to show, in every hu-related thread, that I, INFOPRI, NO LONGER USE HU! I want to make sure no one misses it, so that when mugreth starts the next "to-hu-or-not-to-hu" thread (and come on, mugreth, you know you want to, you trouble-making little newbie!), oldadjunct, larryc, adhoc, and the other bullies pick on someone who actually gives a hu. (Okay, it's only OA so far, I think, but you know the others will believe him when he calls me a hu-user, or, worse, a jedi.) And, larryc, you evil, evil man, you: Now, instead of weekly hu arguments, you want several hu threads going simultaneously? Are we not giving you enough excitement?

(an extract from this webpage - full copy of this webpage is below this extract)

3. The ending of the term is the word Allah, which is the Arabic name of the One. The Semitic roots of the word Allah extend back several thousand years to the Canaanite Elat, Hebrew El and Elohim, and Aramaic Alaha. These roots point toward unity, oneness, the eternal power which includes all of existence and of non-existence. In modern English this would generally be translated as God (which is old English, likely based on the Sanskrit word hu, meaning that which is worshipped, honored or adored).

Using these basic roots, the term bismillah might be translated as:

- By means of the very essence of God
- For the glory of our Creator
- With the light of the One
- With the guidance of The Divine
- As an instrument of the One
- In harmony with Divine Presence

The central idea here is that whatever we do, every step that we take, every breath that we breathe, is done for, because of, and through the essence of, the One who has created us.

It is not us that does the work, it is not us that makes opportunities appear, it is not us that produces fruits from every action. We alone are powerless. The Creator has given us life and has given us the ability to move and think and feel, yet we are totally dependent upon the Creator for the very essence of life itself.

Thus, this beautiful word bismillah is a magnificent reminder of our relationship to our Creator and our relationship to all of creation.

In one simple word bismillah expresses our wonder, awe and thankfulness while it also expresses our innermost prayer that we may have the blessing of another breath, another moment of life, and that we may walk on a path of truth and understanding.

To say bismillah is to humbly offer one's self as a vehicle for the glory and majesty of The One.

--------------------------------------------

Bismillah al rahman al rahim

The Arabic phrase shown above is pronounced as Bismillah ir-Rahman ir-Rahim, and is a beautifully poetic phrase which offers both deep insight and brilliant inspiration. It has often been said that the phrase Bismillah ir-Rahman ir-Rahim contains the true essence of the entire Qur'an, as well as the true essence of all religions.

Muslims often say this phrase when embarking on any significant endeavor, and the phrase is considered by some to be a major pillar of Islam. This expression is so magnificent and so concise that all but one chapter of the Qur'an begins with the words Bismillah ir-Rahman ir-Rahim.

The common translation:

"In the name of God, most Gracious, most Compassionate".

fails to capture either the true depth of meaning or the inspirational message of this beautiful phrase. So, let's look deeper into the meaning of these wonderful words.

Origin and Spelling:

Every chapter of the Qur'an (except the ninth chapter) begins with the Arabic phrase:

However, there are many differing views on how this phrase should be transliterated using the English alphabet, as well as differing views on whether or not to include some of the Arabic rules of grammar. Consequently, one may encounter a variety of different transliterations of this glorious phrase, including:

However, regardless of how one may choose write the English transliteration of the original Arabic, it is neither the writing of the words nor their pronunciation which is crucial, but rather we shall each be rewarded according to what is in our heart and how we act in the world.

Those who say these words with thoughts of self-aggrandizement, or selfish gains, or self-centered vain profit in any manner, will receive their just reward... suffering, pain and confusion. Likewise, those who truly dedicate every step of their life to the glory and service of the Ever-present One shall also receive their just reward... peace, love and beauty.

This phrase is truly an ideal to be expressed from the heart, an ideal to be expressed with the utmost sincerity, an ideal which leads us toward sacred purpose, the purpose for which we have been given life.

Let's look at the deeper meaning of each word of this glorious phrase:

bismillah

The common translation for bismillah is "In the name of Allah", which is actually an idiom, an expression that really doesn't make much sense on a literal word-by-word basis.

The phrase In the name of is an idiom having the connotation of with the blessings of, under the guidance of, as an instrument of, with the support of, or for the glory of. In each of these cases, the idiom In the name of means submitting to, honoring or glorifying that which is referred to.

Now, let's take a deeper look into the Arabic roots of this magnificent word bismillah.

The term bismillah, is a combination of three words:

1. The particle bi which can mean by, for, with the aid of, through or by means of and points toward that which happens next.

2. The next word in this phrase is ism, based on the root variously reported to be s-m-w or a-s-m, which indicates the means by which something is distinguished, whether by use of an identifying mark, or by being raised up high so that it may be distinguished, and would include a name, reputation, light or vibration, and points toward the very essence of something, the inherent qualities and signs of the existence of something, the underlying reality of something.

3. The ending of the term is the word Allah, which is the Arabic name of the One. The Semitic roots of the word Allah extend back several thousand years to the Canaanite Elat, Hebrew El and Elohim, and Aramaic Alaha. These roots point toward unity, oneness, the eternal power which includes all of existence and of non-existence. In modern English this would generally be translated as God (which is old English, likely based on the Sanskrit word hu, meaning that which is worshipped, honored or adored).

Using these basic roots, the term bismillah might be translated as:

- By means of the very essence of God
- For the glory of our Creator
- With the light of the One
- With the guidance of The Divine
- As an instrument of the One
- In harmony with Divine Presence

The central idea here is that whatever we do, every step that we take, every breath that we breathe, is done for, because of, and through the essence of, the One who has created us.

It is not us that does the work, it is not us that makes opportunities appear, it is not us that produces fruits from every action. We alone are powerless. The Creator has given us life and has given us the ability to move and think and feel, yet we are totally dependent upon the Creator for the very essence of life itself.

Thus, this beautiful word bismillah is a magnificent reminder of our relationship to our Creator and our relationship to all of creation.

In one simple word bismillah expresses our wonder, awe and thankfulness while it also expresses our innermost prayer that we may have the blessing of another breath, another moment of life, and that we may walk on a path of truth and understanding.

To say bismillah is to humbly offer one's self as a vehicle for the glory and majesty of The One.

ir rahman ir rahim

These two terms rahman and rahim refer to attributes of the One. While they are often translated simply as Merciful and Compassionate, the roots of the words point to a deeper meaning.

Both rahman and rahim are derived from the Semitic root r-h-m which indicates something of the utmost tenderness which provides protection and nourishment, and that from which all of creation is brought into being. And indeed, the root rhm has meanings of womb, kinship, relationship, loving-kindness, mercy, compassion, and nourishing-tenderness.

Thus, both rahman and rahim point toward that which emerges from the source of all creation, while also conveying a sense of tenderness, loving-kindness, protection and nourishment.

The term rahman is a very emphatic statement, and then the sentiment is echoed by being immediately followed by the use of another form of the same root-word. Such repetition is a joyful celebration of this Divine attribute, much the same as saying "The One who is the Supreme Loving-Kindness, oh such Loving-Kindness".

These two words, rahman and rahim, also express slightly different variations of meaning, as described in the following paragraphs.

rahman:

The term rahman describes that aspect of the source of all creation which is endlessly radiating, endlessly nourishing, regardless of who or what is receiving the endless flow of blessings.

Rahmân conveys the idea of fullness and extensiveness, indicating the great quality of love and mercy which engulfs all of creation without regard to any effort or request on our part.

According to Ibn Qayyum (1350 AD), rahmân describes the quality of abounding Grace which is inherent in and inseparable from the Almighty.

rahim:

On the other hand, the term rahim describes that aspect of the source which is issued forth only in response to the actions and behavior of the recipient. It is in this manner that God takes ten steps toward us when we take even a single step toward God.

Rahîm conveys the idea of constant renewal and giving liberal reward in response to the quality of our deeds and thoughts.

According to Ibn Qayyum (1350 AD), rahîm expresses the continuous manifestation of the Grace in our lives and its effect upon us as a result of our own activities.

ir rahman ir rahim:

Rahman points toward the Beneficent One whose endless outpouring of love and mercy are continually showered upon all of creation, while Rahim points toward the Merciful One whose love and mercy are manifested in that which is received as the consequence of one's deeds.

So, the phrase ir rahman ir rahim is a recognition and honoring of the very source of all existence, the source of all blessings, the source of all compassion, the source of all mercy who gives endlessly to us and who also responds according to our moral integrity, our harmony with all of creation and our love of Allah.

Poetic Renderings:

There is no way for any one translation to capture the many facets of this beautiful phrase Bismillah ir-Rahman ir-Rahim. Here are some poetic renderings that attempt to capture some aspects of the meaning without being literal translations:

With every breath that we breathe, may we be ever aware of the Divine Presence, the Source of all that we receive.

With every step that we take, may we always honor the Light which guides us, the Source and Nourisher of all of creation.

Every moment of this life is filled with your eternal radiance my Beloved, You are the Beneficent One who endlessly showers all of creation with nourishment and blessings, and the One who generously rewards those who live in harmony with Your Divine Will.

Calligraphy:

The words Bismillah ir-Rahman ir-Rahim are so magnificent, so inspiring, so joyous that they have long attracted the hand of calligraphers who have used pen and ink to bring this phrase to life. The samples of calligraphy on this page are all renderings of the magnificent words Bismillah ir-Rahman ir-Rahim.

Songs:

The magnificence of the meaning of these words Bismillah ir-Rahman ir-Rahim brings out music from somewhere deep in my soul, celebrating the majesty and glory of the One.... and you can find some of these songs, on my music page.

"HU is the ancient name for God, a love song to God.
When Soul has heard this sound, Soul yearns to go home."
Sri Harold Klemp
This page is lovingly dedicated to preserving all the
references to HU found in the literature of the world.
"When one is united to the core of another,
to speak of that is to breathe the name HU,
empty of self, filled with love."
Jalal al-Din Rumi

HU is woven into the language of life. It is the Sound of all sounds. It is the wind in the leaves, falling rain, thunder of jets, singing of birds, the awful rumble of a tornado. . . . Its sound is heard in laughter, weeping, the din of city traffic, ocean waves, and the quiet rippling of a mountain stream. And yet, the word HU is not God. It is a word people anywhere can use to address the Originator of Life.

You have the potential for greater happiness, love, and understanding. Singing HU can bring these to you—through the Light and Sound of God.

Throughout the ages, followers of many spiritual traditions have used prayer, the singing of holy words, and meditation to bring themselves closer to God. In the same way, those who have discovered HU, an ancient name for God, sing it for their spiritual upliftment.

Regardless of your beliefs or religion, you can sing HU to become happier and more secure in God's love.

A Divine Connection

Eckankar teaches that a spiritual essence, the Light and Sound, connects everyone with the heart of God. This Light and Sound is the ECK, or the Holy Spirit. Direct experience with these twin aspects of God opens the deep spiritual potential within each of us. The Light and Sound purify, uplift, and direct us on our journey home to God.

Singing HU draws us closer in our state of consciousness to the Divine Being. This is its purpose. It is for those who desire spiritual love, freedom, wisdom, and truth.

An Invitation to Sing HU

You are invited to try this simple spiritual exercise. It has helped people of many different faiths open their hearts more fully to the uplifting presence of God.

To do the exercise, first get comfortable. Close your eyes and take a few deep breaths. Next, gently put your attention on your inner visual screen, where daydreams and images come to you.

With your eyes closed, sing HU (pronounced like the word hue) as a song of love. You may notice a feeling of peace, warmth, and comfort. You may also recognize the presence of the Divine through greater spiritual insights into your daily life. There are many ways to experience the love of God.

When you sing HU and sit in quiet contemplation, you might also perceive the inner Light and Sound. The Light may appear as brightness or colors on your inner visual screen. The Sound may be musical or the sounds of nature, such as the wind or the ocean. However you experience the presence of God, it is bringing you a broader understanding of the life you lead.

Upliftment throughout Your Day

In The Golden Heart, Mahanta Transcripts, Book 4, Harold Klemp explains how HU can help you see your life from this higher viewpoint.

“As you chant the name of God, with love, for twenty minutes a day, the bindings and bands that constrain Soul will begin to unwind. Not all at once, but very slowly, at a rate you can understand and accept. As these bindings are released, Soul rises in spiritual freedom.

“As Soul, you are like a balloon that rises above the ground. The higher you go, the farther you can see. And the farther you can see, the better you can plan your life.”

The word "God" can be plausibly derived from the Sanskrit word "HU." Thanks to James Davis for pointing this out.

"god (___). Also 3­4 godd. [Com. Teut.: OE. god (masc. in sing.; pl. godu, godo neut., godas masc.) corresponds to OFris., OS., Du. god masc., OHG. got, cot (MHG. got, mod.Ger. gott) masc., ON. goð, guð neut. and masc., pl. goð, guð neut. (later Icel. pl. guðir masc.; Sw., Da. gud), Goth. guÞ (masc. in sing.; pl. guÞa, guda neut.). The Goth. and ON. words always follow the neuter declension, though when used in the Christian sense they are syntactically masc. The OTeut. type is therefore *gu_om neut., the adoption of the masculine concord being presumably due to the Christian use of the word. The neuter n., in its original heathen use, would answer rather to L. numen than to L. deus. Another approximate equivalent of deus in OTeut. was *ansu-z (Goth. in latinized pl. form anses, ON. oss, OE. Ós- in personal names, ésa genit. pl.); but this seems to have been applied only to the higher deities of the native pantheon, never to foreign gods; and it never came into Christian use. The ulterior etymology is disputed. Apart from the unlikely hypothesis of adoption from some foreign tongue, the OTeut. *guðom implies as its pre-Teut. type either *ghudho-m or *ghutó-m. The former does not appear to admit of explanation; but the latter would represent the neut. of the passive pple. of a root *gheu-. There are two Aryan roots of the required form (both *g"heu, with palatal aspirate): one meaning ‘to invoke’ (Skr. hu), the other ‘to pour, to offer sacrifice’ (Skr. hu, Gr. _____, OE. _éotan yete v.). Hence *g"hutó-m has been variously interpreted as ‘what is invoked’ (cf. Skr. puru-huta ‘much-invoked’, an epithet of Indra) and as ‘what is worshipped by sacrifice’ (cf. Skr. hutá, which occurs in the sense ‘sacrificed to’ as well as in that of ‘offered in sacrifice’). Either of these conjectures is fairly plausible, as they both yield a sense practically coincident with the most obvious definition deducible from the actual use of the word, ‘an object of worship’. Some scholars, accepting the derivation from the root *g"heu- to pour, have supposed the etymological sense to be ‘molten image’ (= Gr. _____), but the assumed development of meaning seems very unlikely. From a desire to utter the name of God more deliberately than the short vowel naturally allows, the pronunciation is often (____) or even (____), and an affected form (___) is not uncommon: see gud. (For the variations in oaths see 10 and 11.) In Sc. the usual pron. is (___), but Gude (___), i.e. good a., is frequently substituted in such expressions as Gudesake, Gude keep’s, etc.]"

from The Flaming Door: Mission of the Celtic Fold Soul
by Eleanor C. Merry, 1936

"And that which came to meet the soul (as light and sound come to meet our outer eyes and ears) was called HU, the spiritual world." (p. 137)

"The God HU was the all-ruling Divinity of Western Celtic mythology. He represented the power and the glory of the spiritual world." (p. 153)

"The Mysteries of HU revealed the other pole of human life: the ascent out of the body into the 'glorified' state of expansion of the consciousness in the spiritual world." (p. 153)

"And HU could bring music to the consciousness of waking man and teach it to him, because he himself could hear in sleep the harmonies of the spheres, and his passage from waking to sleeping to waking was unbroken by any obliteration of consciousness. This was always the summit of initiation experience." (p. 165)

from The Religions of Tibet
by Giuseppe Tucci

"The figure of the creator, who corresponds to the Isvara of certain Saivite schools, bear various names, among them sNang ba ód Idan, Kun snang khyab pa and khri khug rgyal po. That which he creates has two aspects, the exterior world (phyi snod) and that contained within it (bcud), a division that corresponds to that between the Indian bhajana-loka and sattva-loka. The cosmology which is attached to this is surely very old, and is throughout constructed on a dualist basis. From the breath which streamed out of the creator there emerged two syllables HU HU, and progressively, the entire universe."

from The Book of Druidry
by Ross Nichols

"HU or Heu'c', who is also Hu Gadarn and Hesus or Esus. The Heu'c sound seems to identify with the name or sound for spirit, identified with breath, very general and coming from very far in time and space." (p. 124)

"HU or He was the seed or essence, the form of deity that like littel Gwion is transformed from least to greatest: HU, the unpronounced either with a light i-sound as he or heu'h, is the creative word, the seed of fire, the first sound." (p. 128)

from The secret teachings of all ages:
an encycklopedic outline of Masonic, Hermetic,
Cabbalistic and Rosicrucian Symbolic Philosophy
by Manly P. Hall

"Their temples wherein the sacred fire was preserved were generally situate on eminences and in dense groves of oak, because a circle was the emblem of the universe; oval, in allusion to the mundane egg, from which issued, according to the traditions of many nations, the universe, or, according to others our first parents; serpentine, because a serpent was the symbol of HU, the Druidic Osiris; cruciform because a cross is an emblem of regeneration; or winged, to represent the motion of the divine spirit.*** Their chief deities were reducible to two - a male and a female, the great father and mother - HU and Cridwen, distinguished by the same characteristics as belong to Osiris and Isis, Bacchus and Ceres, or any other supreme goddess representing the two principles of all Being."

"Godfrey Higgins states that HU, the Mighty, regarded as the first settler of Britain, came from a place which the Welsh Triads call the summer country, the present site of Constantinople. Albert Pike says that the Lost Word of Masonry is concealed in the name of the Druid god HU. The meager information extant concerning the secret initiations of the Druids indicates a decided similarity between their Mystery school and the schools of Greece and Egypt. HU, the sun God, was murdered and, after a number of ordeals and mystic rituals, was restored to life."

from The Secret Power of Music
by David Tame

____________

In the beginning was Brahman, with whom was the Word. And the Word is Brahman. - Vedas

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. - Gospel according to St John.

As the religions of East and West so strikingly agree: in the beginning was the Word. But exactly what was -- or, to use the present tense of the Vedic quotation, is -- the Word? The above scriptures describe it as being a part of God, or Brahman. Further, the quotation from the opening of the gospel of St John continues, pregnant with meaning:

The same (the Word) was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

We have, in these famous, deeply mystical lines from St John, then, yet another example of the universal ancient belief that God, or a Divine Being, created the universe, and did so by means of a vibratory emanation. This sacred vibration is usually referred to in early Christian texts as the Word (this meaning of the term having been forgotten or overlooked by most Christians today). In Hinduism the divine vibration is, as we have seen, more usually referred to as OM. Nevertheless, the Word and the OM are one and the same thing. Moreover, a great variety of other terms stemming from the different cultures of ancient times also refer to this same universal, eternal phenomenon. Cosmic Sound, infused with the essence of Consciousness, has been known variously as AUM, AMN, AMEN, AMEEN, OMEN, OMON, I AM, HU, YAHUVAH, the Logos, the Lost Word, and by other names besides. (p. 205)

____________

In Persia the name of the fabulous huma bird is derived from the root, Hum, which is related to OM. And tradition has it that should the huma bird alight for a moment upon the head of any person, then it is a sign that the person is destined to become a 'king'. Incidentally, the root, HU, is a direct reference to the Word of God; and this is most interesting, for this same root is also a part of the Word human. In 'human', the man portion comes from the Sanskrit Mana, or 'mind of the ordinary man'. So the term 'human' is therefore an eternal reminder of the ancient doctrine: that God is even now in all men, and can be more fully realized by all. Even as Jesus was also the Christ, demonstrating the unification of the principles of earth and heaven as both the Son of Man and the Son of God, so are all men hu-man; God-man. (p. 215)

from The Sirius Connection
by Murry Hope

____________

From the aforegoing, it may be seen that the leonine archetype assumed great significance in all Egyptian thinking, from the cosmological to the everyday. Lion gods and spirits were therefore looked upon as the guardians of all places and property, and the heads were often carved to represent members of the family, priests, priestesses, or Pharaohs and their wives. The Greeks called these 'sphinxes'. One of the names of the Egyptian Sphinx was HU, 'the protector'; another was Hor-em-akhet or 'Horus of the Horizon'which immediately connects its erection with those enigmatical 'Sons (or Followers) of Horus' the Shemsu-Hor. Curiously enough, the name 'HU' also occurs in the Celtic myth of Hu Gadam, an Atlantean person from the sea who guided a band of settlers to the prehistoric shores of Wales. There is also an uncanny similarity of sound between the names Hu Gadam and the Tuatha de Danaans (pronounced Tuar-de-Danans), those strange fairy people with magical powers who, according to legend, landed on the shores of prehistoric Ireland. (p. 197)

from The Message of The Sphinx
by Graham Hancock & Robert Bauval

"When speaking of the Sphinx, the Ancient Egyptians frequently made use of the Harranian derivation Hwl, but they also knew it by many other names: HU, for example..." (p. 5)

from A Dictionary of Egyptian Gods and Goddesses
by George Hart

HU - The god who personifies the authority of a word of command.

Hu came into being from a drop of blood from the phallus of the sun-god Re.

When, according to the theology of the Pyramid Age, the king becomes a lone star, his companion is Hu. The royal authority is maintained in the Afterlife by Hu acknowledging the king's supremacy and allowing the monarch to cross the waters of his canal.

It is tempting to correlate Hu with the power of the tongue of Ptah in the Memphite creation legend, commanding the universeinto existence, at the instigation of Ptah's heart. (p. 97)

from The Whirling Dervishes : Being an account of the Sufi order known as the Mevlevis and its founder the poet and mystic Mevlana Jalalúddin Rumi
by Shems Friedlander

"When the Sheik arrives at his post, he bows, sits on the post, and kisses the floor. All the turners sit, and their cloaks are put on them by those who did not turn in the fourth selam. They have returned to their tombs but in an altered state. The Sheik recites the Fathia, the first sura of the Koran, and all the dervishes kiss the floor and rise. The Sheik then sounds a prayer to Mevlana and Shams Tabriz and begins the sound "HU". The dervishes join in sounding the "HU" which is all the names of God in one."

from The Music of Life
by Hazrat Inayat Khan

The mystery of HU is revealed to the Sufi who journeys through the path of initiation. Truth, the knowledge of God, is called by a Sufi "haqq". If we divide the word "haqq" into two parts, its assonant sounds become "hu ek", HU signifying God or truth and EK in Hindustani meaning one. Both together express one God and one truth. "Haqiqat" in Arabic means the essential truth, "hakim" means master, and "hakim" means knower, all of which words express the essential characteristics of life.

"Aluk" is the sacred word that the "vairagis", the adepts of India, use as their sacred chant. In the word "aluk" are expressed two words: "al" meaning "the," and "haqq", "truth," both words together expressing God the Source from which all comes.

The sound HU becomes limited in the word "ham", for the letter "m" closes the lips. In Hindustani this word expresses limitation because ham means "I" or "we," both of which words signify ego. The word "hamsa" is the sacred word of the yogis which illumines the ego with the light of reality. The word "huma" in the Persian language stands for a fabulous bird. There is a belief that if the "huma" bird sits for a moment on someone's head it is a sign that he will become a king. Its true meaning is that when a person's thoughts so evolve that they break all limitation, then he becomes as a king. It is the limitation of language that it can only describe the Most High as something like a king. It is said in the old traditions that Zoroaster was born of a "huma" tree. This explains the words in the Bible, "Except a man be born of water and the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." In the word "huma", "hu" represents spirit, and the word "mah" in Arabic means water. In English the word "human " explains two facts which are characteristic of humanity: "hu" means God and "man" means mind, which word comes from the Sanskrit "mana", mind being the ordinary person. The two words united represent the idea of the God-conscious person; in other words HU, God, is in all things and beings, but it is man by whom He is known. "Human " therefore may be said to mean God-conscious, God-realized, or God-man. The word "hamd" means praise, "hamid", praiseworthy, and "Muhammad", praiseful. The name of the Prophet of Islam was significant of his attitude to God.

"Hur" in Arabic means the beauties of heavens; its real meaning is the expression of heavenly beauty. "Zahur" in Arabic means manifestation, especially that of God in nature. "Ahura Mazda" is the name of God known to the Zoroastrians. The first word, "Ahura", suggests HU, upon which the whole name is built.

All of these examples signify the origin of God in the word HU and the life of God in every thing and being.

"Hayy" in Arabic means everlasting, and "Hayat" means life, both of which words signify the everlasting nature of God. The word "huwal" suggests the idea of omnipresence, and "Huvva" is the origin of the name of Eve, which is symbolic of manifestation. As Adam is symbolic of life, they are named in Sanskrit "Purusha" and "Prakriti".

Jehovah was originally "Yahuva", "ya" suggesting the word "oh" and "hu" but when sound first takes shape on the external plane, it becomes "a". Therefore "alif" or "alpha" is considered to be the first expression of HU, the original word. (pp. 27-29)

In sufi circles they say, "There's prayer, and a step up from that
is meditation, and a step up from that is sohbet, or conversation."
Who is talking to HU! (The pronoun for divine presence.) Lover
to beloved, teacher to disciple. The Friendship of Rumi and Shams
became a continuous conversation, in silence and words, presence
talking to absence, existence to non-existence, periphery to center.
Rumi's poetry may be heard as eavesdropping on that exchange."

By filling our world with the creative sound of HU, the unknown name of God, we will become a channel for divine spirit. When used properly, uttered aloud or silently, the creative Soul will enable our Soul to ride the divine vibrations through all the realms of time and space to our own glorious destination. (p. 84)

____________

Spirit is the all-penetrating power which is the forming power of the universes of HU. It is the immortal unchanging source of life which only changes form regardless of what the world may be. It is the causative force which man has studied, written about, and can only know the exacting properties of, never actually acquiring total knowledge. We know that its modus operandi works peculiarly in exacting ways as do the mathematical formulas. Scientists and students of the Holy Works, all know this.

This spirit, the Voice of HU--HU is often known as the SUGMAD--which is the true name of God in the upper realms, has one great quality and that is to create effect. As it flows down through the worlds, from its fountainhead in the center of all creation, far above this earth world, it needs distributors, and it works through Souls. (p. 86)

____________

The ancients developed sound before any of the other studies of the Spirit. Thus, music became the first of the arts to be brought into existence. Music is only a branch of the Song of the SUGMAD, the HU, the all-existing. (p. 91)

from The Spiritual Notebook

____________

The first of these three creative techniques is called the Surat technique. Its practice focuses on Soul hearing the melody of ECK. As we advance into the inner worlds, the music of the ECK becomes greater, until it ultimately merges into the SUGMAD, the Godhead.

The Surat way is rather simple. It is chiefly a spiritual exercise that involves sitting in silence. The participant sits in a straight chair, both feet on the ground. Putting both hands in his lap, fingers interlaced with palms up, the practitioner places his attention on the Tisra Til, the Spiritual Eye.

The subject then takes five deep breaths and begins repeating the word HU, the universal name of God. After a length of time has elapsed, he takes five more deep breaths and continues softly chanting the word HU. It is pronounced H-U, in a long drawn-out manner. His attention remains fixed on the Tisra Til. He does not try to see anything; he just holds it there.

After another pause, he again repeats his five deep breaths, bringing them to a total of fifteen.

Following this he slows down chanting the name of God until it is very, very slow. Breathing softly, he begins to listen to what he is singing. His chanting slows, until it is halted completely. His attention is then switched to listening to the esoteric sounds as the HU rolls through him. He starts vibrating like a machine; and he may shake considerably, but he does not let this frighten him.

Very soon he begins to hear a humming sound in the back of his head, spreading out into his body, until he becomes part of the sound. Then various parts of the ECK melody start. Sometimes it is the roaring of a waterfall, other times the sounds of violins or flutes. This means he is out somewhere on the far planes of the higher worlds, beyond the Fifth, or Soul, Plane, and traveling in the Atma body in the realms of God.

These sounds will gradually become a melody of celestial music unlike anything heard before. (pp. 79, 80)

Every moment of your life, you must be the HU. This is more than just chanting HU. This is being the HU. The Sound must always be in your atoms. It must be with you when you're driving, when you're at work, when you're at home eating a meal with your family. The HU and you must be one and the same. And if you make yourself more and more one with the HU, you will find that life is a more joyful place.

I've used many words to try to show you something. I can't give you truth in words. I can give you ideas; I can give you images. I leave this image with you: Live your life as if you are one with the HU, so that every moment of your life is a spiritual exercise. When you are talking to a stranger, when you are with your loved ones, you are a spiritual exercise. You are living and moving in the body of ECK.

And as an atom in the body of ECK, there is a sound that comes from you. That sound is HU. This sound not only comes from you, but it is you. You must know that this body you have is just a shield, a barrier--a heavy, course shield, and a barrier which is trying to stop you from hearing and seeing your true identity as Soul. (p. 278)

from Soul Travelers of the Far Country

________________

This is the exercise I used in contemplation at bedtime. I sang the word HU to myself on the outgoing breath and held the note until drawing another breath. HU, a most holy name of God, was the ancient Lemurian's song of upliftment. It was their way to reach the ECK, the Holy Spirit. The Druids held that HU was the highest God, and to the Egyptians the name meant the God of Utterance­a corruption of its real meaning, however. (p. 26)

Comments

Hu: From Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia

HU, Hu or hu may refer to:

* Hu (mythology), the deification of the first word, in the Egyptian mythology of the Ennead
* Huh (god), the deification of eternity in the Egyptian mythology of the Ogdoad
* Hu (Sufism), a name for God.
* Hu (surname), a Chinese family name represented by the character 胡
o Hu Jintao, the current president of People's Republic of China
* Shanghai, abbreviated as Hù, city of China
* Hu (state), former state of China
* Hu County, in Xi'an, Shaanxi, China
* Wu Hu, the barbaric tribes surrounding ancient China
* 蝴 (hanyu pinyin : hú), a Chinese character meaning butterfly
* Hungarian language, ISO 639 alpha-2, hu
* Hu (sheep), a breed of sheep
* Hu (unit), a large Asian measurement unit
* Fu (kana), also romanised as Hu, Japanese kana ふ and フ
* Hounsfield Units, on the Hounsfield scale, a unit of measurement used on a computed tomography machine (CAT)
* .hu, the Internet country code top-level domain for Hungary
* A mantra (similar to Aum or Om) popularized by the religion Eckankar as a name for and love song to God
* Adir Hu, hymn sung at the Passover Seder
* Huy, Walloon name Hu, Belgian city
* Harrisburg University of Science and Technology
* Utrecht University of Applied Sciences, Hogeschool Utrecht in Utrecht, The Netherlands
* Hu (vessel), a type of ancient Chinese bronze vessel

HU, disambiguation

HU may mean:

* Hungary (ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code)
* Howard University in Washington, DC
* Hampton University in Hampton, Virginia
* Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts
* Hollins University in Roanoke, Virginia
* Humboldt University of Berlin in Berlin, Germany
* Haigazian University in Beirut, Lebanon
* Car designation for Hanau, Germany
* Car designation for province of Huesca, Spain; and abbreviation for city of same name
* Hashemite University in Jordan, Zarqa
* Hounsfield Units, a radiodensity unit of measurement on the Hounsfield scale used in CT scanning
* Hainan Airlines IATA code
* Hollywood Undead, an American Rapcore band formed in California

1. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or having the nature of people: human frailty.
2. consisting of people: the human race.
3. of or pertaining to the social aspect of people: human affairs.
4. sympathetic; humane: a warmly human understanding.

—Can be confused: human, humane (see synonym and pronunciation notes at this entry).

—Synonyms

1. Human, humane may refer to that which is, or should be, characteristic of human beings. In thus describing characteristics, human may refer to good and bad traits of a person alike (human kindness; human weakness). When emphasis is placed upon the latter, human is thought of as contrasted to divine: To err is human, to forgive divine. He was only human. Humane (the original spelling of human, and since 1700 restricted in meaning) takes into account only the nobler or gentler aspects of people and is often contrasted to their more ignoble or brutish aspect. A humane person is benevolent in treating fellow humans or helpless animals; the word once had also connotations of courtesy and refinement (hence, the application of humane to those branches of learning intended to refine the mind).

—Pronunciation note

Pronunciations of words like human, huge, etc., with the initial /h/ Show Spelled[h] Show IPA deleted: /ˈyumən/[yoo-muhn], /yudʒ/[yooj], while sometimes criticized, are heard from speakers at all social and educational levels, including professors, lawyers, and other public speakers.

1. A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.
2. A person: the extraordinary humans who explored Antarctica.

adj.

1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of humans: the course of human events; the human race.
2. Having or showing those positive aspects of nature and character regarded as distinguishing humans from other animals: an act of human kindness.
3. Subject to or indicative of the weaknesses, imperfections, and fragility associated with humans: a mistake that shows he's only human; human frailty.
4. Having the form of a human.
5. Made up of humans: formed a human bridge across the ice.

[Middle English humain, from Old French, from Latin hūmānus; see dhghem- in Indo-European roots.]
hu'man·hood' n., hu'man·ness n.

1. A member of the species Homo sapiens; a human being.
2. A member of any of the extinct species of the genus Homo, such as Homo erectus or Homo habilis, that are considered ancestral or closely related to modern humans.

The Celestial Sphinx: The Lost Word
and The Lost Secrets

Ancient Egyptians and the Constellations: Part 2

* * *

Who is God, the Creator? The Celestial Sphinx?

Hu is God, the Creator, the Celestial Sphinx.

The Lost Word

In the heavens the Celestial Sphinx is caught in the act of Creation. As he becomes a living God he gently expels his first breath Hhhhhhooooooo. As the first Word of God is pronounced it sounds like the harmonics of a cosmic breeze.

As a second breath is expelled Hhhhhhooooooo the sounds and name of the Ancient Egyptian god Hu Hu, meaning "Authoritative Utterance: Word of God: Word of Creation", is revealed.

"h" ------ "h" ----- Hu

A "hawk on a standard" is an ancient Egyptian hieroglyph for "God". The phonics of the hieroglyphs sound out the pronunciation of the pictogram of the God Hu. Technically he is called Hu Hu as it is a double utterance.

As the Celestial Sphinx continues to expel his breath of life, Hhhhhhooooooo, the heavens are progressively created. The Celestial Sphinx is the Creator and Architect of the Universe. The Celestial Sphinx is God and the ancient name for God was Hu.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1 v 1,2)

* In the beginning was the Word, Hhhhhhooooooo,
* and the Word was with God, who was the Celestial Sphinx named Hu by the remote Ancient Egyptians,
* and the Word was God. Hhhhhhooooooo.

Clearly "Hhhhhhooooo" or "Hu" is the Word or utterance which means "God".

The Lost Secrets

The earthly representation of the Celestial Sphinx can still be seen today to the east of the Pyramids at Giza. The word "Sphinx" is of Ancient Greek origin meaning "an enigma" or "a riddle", because to the Ancient Greeks the purpose of the Sphinx was obscure, its meaning had been lost.

To the remote Ancient Egyptians however the esoteric meaning and purpose of the Sphinx at the Giza Plateau was abundantly clear: as demonstrated by their name for the Sphinx … Hu.

Imagine the scene at the Dawn of the Egyptian Civilization. A ceremony in which the Creation of the Universe is re-enacted is in progress. Night is falling. The image of the Giza Sphinx, Hu, sits waiting. There is absolute silence. The Act of Creation has not yet begun. Finally, at a given signal the air vibrates with the sound of the First Word of Creation, Hhhhhhooooooo. The Word of God is chanted throughout the night and the following Dawn until the process of the Creation of the Universe is complete. The final Act of Creation is the Sun when it rises in the East.

The first and final Words of God were identical, Hhhhhhooooooo. With the First Word God created Orion, the soul of Osiris. With the Last Word God created the Sun. The whole process of Creation is contained within the name Hu Hu … the First and the Last Breaths of the Creator.

The first shall be last and the last shall be first. (Mark 10 v31)

The body of the remote Ancient Egyptian God of Creation, Hu, was deliberately leonine, as the superbly crafted lion was a symbol of Power and Strength. The lion was omnipotent. Even today the lion is referred to as "King of the Beasts". The face of the Creator with the distinctive Osiris Beard, and the Red Crown of the Creator, are the hallmarks of the remote Ancient Egyptians.

The remote Ancient Egyptians must have thought it uncanny when they first stumbled across the outcrop of rock, which so resembled the general shape of the Celestial Sphinx, on the Giza Plateau. However, even more startling was the fact that it lay in a perfect East / West alignment. By carving out the Sphinx, Hu, facing towards the East, the Creator was able to daily observe his final Act of Creation, the Sun, rising above the horizon.

Imagine the Giza Plateau at Dawn, 6:59am on March 19th 14000BCE. (Working back in Time using the Gregorian Calendar.) The Celestial Sphinx, Hu, is sitting on the horizon watching the birth of his final Act of Creation, the Sun. It is sunrise on what would seem to be the first perfect day.

However there is one imperfection: the Sun is not rising exactly in the East. Rather it is rising in the ESE. Sunset is not an exact twelve hours later. It is at 5:13pm.

Dawn at the Giza Plateau 6:59am March 19th 14000BCE.
The celestial Sphinx, Hu, is sitting on the horizon viewing
Dawn , the Birth of his last act of Creation, the Sun.
The Sun is rising in the ESE.
Sunset is at 5:13pm, not an exact 12 hours later
(The computer software I used to access this skychart is:
Haney, M.A. Skyglobe 3.5
A Shareware Product of KlassM Software, 1992)

Moreover, on what we consider to be the Spring Equinox, March 21st in 14000BCE, the Celestial Sphinx is not sitting horizontally on the horizon and the Sun is still not rising in the East. It was not until July 4th 14000BCE that the Sun rose in the East.

When the sun rises at 7:01am on March 21st 14000,
the Spring Equinox, the Celestial Sphinx is not sitting
in a horizontal position on the horizon and
the Sun is still rising in the ESE.
(The computer software I used to access this skychart is:
Haney, M.A. Skyglobe 3.5
A Shareware Product of KlassM Software, 1992)

At 6:26pm July 3rd 14000BCE the Sun set in the West. Exactly twelve hours later at 6:26am July 4th 14000BCE the Sun rose in the East! Exactly twelve hours after that, at 6:26pm July 4th 14000BCE, the Sun set in the West. The cycle was broken at sunrise the following morning at 6:25am; eleven hours and fifty nine minutes following sunset the previous evening.

The crucial dates are July 3rd and July 4th 14000BCE. (Remember that these dates are using the Gregorian Calendar.)

Furthermore, at the Giza Plateau around 11:57pm to midnight on July 3rd 14000BCE the Celestial Sphinx could again be observed sitting on the horizon gazing towards the East where his final Act of Creation would be born the following Dawn.

At the Giza Plateau around 11:57pm on July 3rd 14000BCE
the Celestial Sphinx could be observed sitting on the
southern horizon gazing directly eastwards.
(The computer software I used to access this skychart is:
Haney, M.A. Skyglobe 3.5
A Shareware Product of KlassM Software, 1992)

This conjunction involving the Celestial Sphinx and the Sun setting in the West, rising in the East and setting in the West again at exactly twelve hour intervals (which explains why the Ancient Egyptians divided their night and day into exactly twelve hours each regardless of the amount of daylight and darkness) has never occurred since.

The Celestial Sphinx began to disappear below the Giza horizon within 200 years of the conjunction. Indeed by 13750 BCE the Celestial Sphinx, was no longer fully visible above the Giza horizon.

Based on both remote Ancient Egyptian astronomy which must pre-date 14000 BCE and the East / West alignment of the Sphinx at Giza, the Sphinx, Hu, dates back to 14000 BCE! He will celebrate his 16000th birthday on American Independence Day 2000 AD. (I think that if George Washington were still with us today he would nod his head and smile.)

(Note: Except for the positions of the planets and the Sun, the sky charts for Dawn at the Giza Plateau 6:59am March 19th 14000BCE, and nearing midnight at the Giza Plateau 11:57pm July 3rd 14000BCE, are identical and therefore virtually interchangeable. To avoid confusion I have chosen 11:57pm July 3rd 14000BCE as my reference point in Time. I made this decision based on the twelve hour night followed by the Sun rising in the East, which was in turn followed by a twelve hour day. I could equally have chosen 6:59am March 19th 14000BCE because the Celestial Sphinx was sitting on the horizon as the Sun rose, albeit in the ESE.)

Amazingly the similarities between the Ancient Egyptian star map and the ground plan at Giza involving the Sphinx facing directly eastwards do not end here. Take a look at the star map below. The dotted lines which have been added indicate the Milky Way … which was considered by the Ancient Egyptians to be the Celestial River Nile. Notice how the Celestial Sphinx is gazing directly across the Celestial Nile towards the East where the Sun will rise the next morning at 6:26am July 4th 14000 BCE (using the Gregorian calendar). This identical image and moment in Time was recreated on the ground at Giza. The Constellation of Gemini, the Twins, clearly visible in the ESE on the sky map below, represents this duality.

At the Giza Plateau around 11:57pm on July 3rd 14000BCE
the Celestial Sphinx could be observed sitting on the southern horizon
gazing directly eastwards, across the Celestial Nile towards the exact
point where the Sun would rise at 6:26am the next morning.
This identical image and moment in Time was recreated
on the ground at Giza.
(The computer software I used to access this skychart is:
Haney, M.A. Skyglobe 3.5
A Shareware Product of KlassM Software, 1992)

Thousands of years later the sacred knowledge of the Celestial Sphinx Constellation and its associated secrets and mythology had been lost. All that remained was the enigmatic Sphinx at Giza facing towards the East.

Incredibly however, the Lost Secrets do not end here for when Hu is facing directly Eastwards at around 11:57pm on July 3rd 14000BCE three pyramids are clearly visible directly behind, and directly west of the Celestial Sphinx.

When Hu is facing directly Eastwards at around
11:57pm on July 3rd 14000BCE three pyramids are clearly
visible directly behind, and directly west of the Celestial Sphinx.
(The computer software I used to access this skychart is:
Haney, M.A. Skyglobe 3.5
A Shareware Product of KlassM Software, 1992)

Significantly the three pyramids are part of the Constellation of Phoenix, so named by the Ancient Greeks … the myth attached to it being about Death and Resurrection. In Ancient Egyptian mythology the precursor of the Phoenix was the Bennu bird which, like the Constellation of Orion, was also known as "The Soul of Osiris".

As the soul of Osiris is also considered to be the spirit or the breath of life, Hhhhhhooooooo, it could be argued that only Osiris could be the Creator God, the Celestial Sphinx. In support of this, the Celestial Sphinx is sporting the Osiris Beard!

In this small section of the heavens is recorded a pictogram representation of remote Ancient Egyptian mythology which centred on Creation, Death and Resurrection; particularly the death and resurrection of Osiris whose soul is represented by both the Constellation of Orion and the Constellation of the Phoenix.

The main three pyramids at Giza, (Kafre, Kufu and Menkaura) which are representative of the Constellation of the Phoenix and its association with Death and Resurrection, were erected directly behind, and directly west of, the Sphinx at Giza … in imitation of the heavenly original, as indicated on the star map.

The Great Pyramid represents the body of the Phoenix or Bennu bird, while the pyramids of Kafre and Menkaura represent the wings.

Orion: Soul of Osiris ----- Osiris ------ Phoenix: Soul of Osiris

The union of the Constellations of Orion and Phoenix was not only achieved in their both being the "Soul of Osiris". Their union was also achieved in the ground plan of the Pyramids at Giza.

The ground plan of the main three pyramids at Giza was discovered to be a replica of Orion's Belt in the Constellation of Orion by Robert Bauval in November 1983. (Bauval, R & Gilbert, A, The Orion Mystery. Mandarin, London 1994)

Furthermore the Osiris Crown could be interpreted as an earthly representation of the Constellation of Phoenix … the White Crown flanked by two feathers representing the body and wings of the Phoenix or Bennu bird. It would therefore follow that the symbolism of the Crown would emulate that of the Constellation of the Phoenix: namely Death and Resurrection. It is an indisputable fact that in Ancient Egyptian mythology Osiris did represent Death and Resurrection. His was the first Resurrection, the first Raising. His child Horus was the Son of the Widow, Isis.

Jiang-hu, A One Word Definition for a Globalized World

Monday, December 11, 2006, 02:49 AM

Wandering Blades Blog

Welcome back to the Inn. I thought I’d take a break from the relentless march of Chinese literary history that I’ve been leading and take up a promise I made on the home page of The Dragon Gate Inn website, “to define jiang-hu in ten words or less.” In this entry, I will do better than that. I will define jiang-hu in one word! Of course, after I expend a lot more words to get to that one word!

To begin, we must do a quick survey of how jiang-hu has been defined up to this moment, this “magical” moment! I’d like to begin by taking a brief look at the appearance of that two-character combination [jiang and hu, literally, “river(s)” and “lake(s)”] in Chinese literature over the centuries. For a quick look at the history of this term, I consulted the 10 volume, 17,244 page (!) Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Chinese Language (Zhongwen da cidian) – this work is sort of the Oxford English Dictionary for the Chinese language. There are five meanings given.

The first reference in Chinese literature seems to have been in our old friend Sima Qian’s Records of the Grand Historian (Shiji) where he cites a reference to the “three rivers and five lakes” that is abbreviated as the “rivers and lakes” or “jiang-hu.” This clearly has nothing to do with the wuxia tradition; rather it is a geographic reference.

The next reference is found in the History of the (Former) Han Dynasty (Hanshu), which was completed in the early 2nd century C.E. There the term refers to the “world” in general; as in “out in the world” things/people are such and such.

The third meaning does appear in some of the English explanations of the term that I found. In Chinese literature, the term jiang-hu came to mean the region(s) or area(s) where hermits chose to live away from the Imperial Court. We are getting closer.

The fourth meaning is a more specific geographic one where the term refers to the Yangtze River (Chang jiang) and Lake Dongting (Dongting hu).

With the fifth meaning we are closer to “home.” Jiang-hu also refers to the places where street performers, wandering panhandlers, and entertainers ply their wares and trades. Someone who is long experienced in such activities is referred to as “an old (i.e., experienced) rivers and lakes person” (lao jianghu).

We can see that from this last definition it is not much of a jump to making this a reference to the regions were our wandering blades roam. Yet, how do we translate that into English? – Time to turn to our English explanations/translations.

James J.Y. Liu in The Chinese Knight-Errant only refers to the term in passing when he translates the title of a book that uses jiang-hu, and there he translates it literally as “rivers and lakes.”

…the milieu, environment, or sub-community, often fictional, in which many Chinese classical wuxia stories are set. The term can be translated literally as "rivers and lakes". Metaphorically, however, it refers not to a physical place or geographic location but to the wild and romanticized domain of secret societies, gangs, fighters, entertainers, prostitutes, assassins, thieves, actors, beggars, and wanderers that is roughly the Chinese equivalent to the English terms "bohemian" and "the underworld".

And their definition continues with a brief look at the term in Chinese literature:

The term originally started in Chinese literature in the more literal sense of "rivers and lakes" to denote an unsettled geographic area. In medieval China, outlaws often fled to the frontiers, returning only to prey upon the law-abiding world. The roots of jianghu wuxia (frontier heroes) go back at least as far as the 12th century novel Water Margin (水浒传), in which a band of noble outlaws retreated to a swampy hideout and mounted sorties in an attempt to right the wrongs of the corrupt officials. Over time, especially in the wuxia novel tradition, the term eventually took on the more metaphoric meaning.

This sort of agrees with my look into the Chinese use of the term, but it should be noted that the great Water Margin is a mid-14th century work. What is useful, however, is the point that the term “eventually took on the more metaphoric meaning.” I really wonder if it ever held anything but a metaphoric meaning as a home for the xia.

Most of these English language descriptions are merely describing the home of the “common people” or in Chinese, the laobaixing. It was not so much a “lawless” area, but, like most traditional societies, the area of daily life where relationships (guan-xi) and not the law held the most authority. And these patterns held sway in all societies whether it was China, New York, Chicago, Tokyo, or Hong Kong where the crime gangs like the Mafia, Yakuza, or Triads had their areas of influence. Or, even more interesting and closer in terms of analogy, the “Wild West” of the American frontier.

And here is where a very interesting view of jiang-hu is put forth in an article mentioned in a previous blog, “Art Imitates Life, Life Imitates Art,” by Brian L. Kennedy, JD and Elizabeth Guo, BA (Classical Fighting Arts, Issue #9, pp.31-37) where they write:

It is much like the American Old West of John Wayne movies and dime store cowboy novels. It was physically inhospitable; weapons were the norm; and for better or worse a “man could be free.” In a very real sense the jianghu was a “state of mind” as much as a physical place…

In the jianghu the official courts of law, in fact the normal state sanctioned law itself, is useless. They are useless either because of judicial corruption or because the laws themselves are skewed to favor the rich and the politically powerful. As a result, men have to “take the law into their own hands,” and differences can only be resolved by the sword, the spear, or the fist.

The authors’ points are well taken: that jiang-hu is both a “state of mind” and a “place” where institutional justice does not function. We can say that it is a fictional place where perceived injustices are dealt with. But in this age of globalization is this “place,” this jiang-hu limited only to the boundaries of China? Are our literary xia only Chinese characters?

Switching to the fiction writer’s point of view, jiang-hu is a place where the reader can just as easily run into the likes of Robin Hood, Sam Spade, Rick Blaine, Shane, Batman, Luke Skywalker, and V. They are all xia fighting in their own local jiang-hu be that Sherwood Forest, L.A., Casablanca, the Old West, Gotham City, Tatooine, or London.

As a fantasy writer, as a wuxia novelist, my jiang-hu is located in 7-8th centuries China and my xia are poets, monks, court officials, shamans and shamanesses, swordsmen and women, and all those who populated that distant time and place, that distant jiang-hu, and sought justice.

But how does this help define the term? Jiang-hu, from this fantasy writer’s perspective, can be defined in one word: imagination. As Ursula K. Le Guin wrote:

Jiang-hu is the imagination in its quest for a just world, a world where all the injustices – be that in ancient China or in the 21st century – are sought to be redressed; an exercise in “our most human capacity.”

And isn’t interesting that with this definition we come almost full circle to the Han shu or 2nd century Chinese use of the term as meaning “the world.”

Lectures & Talks
The meaning of Hu
A talk by John G. Bennett given at Beshara, Swyre Farm 21 December, 1972

John Bennett starts his talk with the words: 'I am speaking to you with words and you're listening to the words that I'm saying. What I want to convey to you, and what you want to hear from me, cannot be said in words.'

What follows is much more than a talk. Here, as the listener, you are transported into the living presence of an extraordinary man, who invites you to bear witness with him to a mystery, which is literally 'beyond words'.

Below is also a text version of this talk, published in 'Intimations' by Beshara Publications.

We start with an impossibility. I want to speak about what can't be said, and this I want you to take seriously; when I say that it can't be said, I do mean just that. It can be talked about, but when one talks about it one is talking about an image, an idea or perhaps even nothing more than a lot of words. How far is it beyond words? If it were just one step beyond words, it may be that some sort of analogy, description or picture would help. I'm going to speak about Hu in the sense that the Sufis use this word; in the ordinary way in Arabic it means nothing, 'he', 'she', 'it', anything you like, it just tacks on to the ends of verbs and means 'he'. It can be used in the most ordinary way in everyday Arabic conversation. But, it also means the ultimate, that which is entirely beyond all attribute, beyond anything that can ever be said. It also does mean the nearest of all. You've got Nejmeddin Kubra. His explanation of it I can start with. He said, 'Every time we breathe, we say this. This "ah" of Allah is the essential reality of everything because everything that breathes, every breath, says this'. This is a way of expressing this immanence, the indwelling of this in everything. One cannot breathe without saying this. That's how he explained it. That's one way of feeling it and experiencing it. It is the very essence of our breathing, that means the very essence of our lives, the very essence of our being. But, for the Sufi, I think it is not so easy to take it that way alone.

We, for some reason or other, have been put into this world, we've been put into this human body. For me there is no doubt that this has been done for a purpose and we are expected to fulfill that purpose. We've not been sent here for nothing. We haven't even been sent here for our own benefit, because there is something that is required of us. And, we've been sent about as far away as it is possible to be sent without losing contact with the Source, that is without losing the possibility of returning by one's own volition to the Source. If we had been sent further away than this, if we'd been sent into an animal form, or a vegetable form, we wouldn't be able to return of our own accord. We would have had to depend upon the whole evolutionary process to bring us back. Where we are situated, it is just possible to return, that is, to return of our own volition, not by the stream. Everything will return by the stream, but we men are given the possibility of direct return. This state in which we are is in Sufi terms, the Nasut. This condition here of existence, which is sometimes called the human condition, really is the human condition together with everything that surrounds us, all this life of the animal, vegetable, mineral world. This is the world to which we've been sent. If we're not able to make our way back by our own volition, it doesn't mean that everything is lost, because we shall return in any case with the stream that flows back to the Source. But that's not really what's intended for man. Man's destiny is not just to be carried along in the stream of evolution, through mineral to vegetable, through vegetable to animal, through animal to this kind of life and from this to others. The Source is what we are speaking about: The word Hu.

It is a very restricted world, a very restricted, conditioned state of existence, where we can only see sideways in this world. We see this earth, we see this sun and solar system. We see stars and galaxies. They're all alongside of us. There's no way back through them. The whole of this universe is ordinary. The whole of this universe is subject to the same conditions, the same limitations as our existence. The whole of this visible creation is nothing but this Nasut. We think because it is very great, very large in size, because it has existed for thousands of millions of years, that it is something great. It is nothing but one sheet of paper in a great book. But we are hypnotised by this world round us. We can't help somehow or other falling into this illusion that because it is large it is great. It's no greater that a sheet of paper put on the floor. Until we can free ourselves from this illusion that this world is great, we find it very difficult to begin to make the journey towards what are the truly great worlds. The truly great worlds are within. It sometimes happens to us that a glimpse comes of this very next world to ours. When that glimpse comes to someone, they are overwhelmed by it. 'This is infinity', they say, 'this is all. Now this is the cosmos revealed'. They call this 'cosmic consciousness'; wonderful, the whole, everything is transformed. Everything is full of wonder and astonishing. Infinity has revealed itself. What has really happened? One little glimpse of a world which is beyond this one! Not even drawn into that world, not even yet coming under the power of that world, and that's what is called 'cosmic consciousness'. You see descriptions of 'cosmic consciousness', they sound wonderful! Visions of infinity, unlimited worlds, beauty beyond telling! 'Tis nothing. It is still only just a change of our subjective state. People are drowned again and again in this vision of 'cosmic consciousness'. But what kind of drowning? They just come up and breathe, and everything is just as it was before. All kinds of ecstatic visions, all sorts of wonders, trances and the rest of it, are just nothing else but having added one dimension to our experience. Instead of this flat world in which we live, we have seen some depth, and everything is so changed and transformed by having that perspective in it, that we think this is the reality. 'I have now seen all that there is to see, all has been revealed to me,' - and over and over again people fall into this trap. It is a trap because if they believe in that vision, they will be satisfied with it. If they believe that this is what life is about, to have experiences of cosmic consciousness, of opening vistas of unspeakable beauty and wonder and so on, then they are caught in that, and just as much caught as we are, as people are, in this material, flat world.

It needs something more. One has to discard, throw away something of oneself, in order to be able really to enter into that world. Then one comes under a different power. Then an action begins. This is called Jebberut. The power of God begins to be felt. This is the time when the way is hard. If anyone enters into this, they experience the whole agony of separation, because only then, only when they have gone through this threshold, do they begin to see that they are deprived of everything that really matters, while they are in this state of existence, everything perishable, everything uncertain, conditioned and limited. And really made worse, made more unbearable, when one understands that this vision has given one nothing. The first requirement for this is that one should be able to see that this vision, this 'cosmic consciousness', has done nothing for one. I remember when this happened to me nearly forty years ago now; I remember I thought everything had happened that could happen. For days I was in a state of bliss and ecstasy, and then, little by little, it dawned on me that I was just the same as I had been before. Only then did I really begin to suffer. This is very strange, this second world. A name that is also given to this is the 'Alemi Erwah. It is called the spiritual world, world of spirits, Ruh, the spirit. It is also called purgatory. What does it mean? It means the state in which one is aware that one is not able to be what one needs to be, that one is not able to possess what one has seen. Unless you pass through this state, it is impossible; there is no way, I think. Everyone has always said this and the whole of my experience confirms it, that there is no way through, except through this door. The 'cosmic consciousness' becomes cheap. It is nothing.

What is the worth of it if I am still not able to go the way I must go? I must return to my source, my origin. Not so many people pass through this door. You must understand that. What is this, this spiritual world? To enter this, one must be detached, one has to be able to abandon one's attachment to one's body, to bodily experiences, to every kind of external support. One has to be as if one had died. Then one can come under that power. This is why it is called Jebberut. To be under the power of God. To allow the action of the Divine Power to work on us. People think it is lovely thing to be purified, to have one's egoism and one's defects cleared out of one. Maybe, but it's not a pleasant thing, not without much suffering. There is no way out. We have to have great respect for those who plunge into this Istigraq, the going under, letting oneself be taken by this power, letting it act upon one. Then come glimpses of something else. Until that time, the love is truly only a word. It is truly only a word given to something that you don't know, or that you quite wrongly apply to things to which the word love is not a fit word to be given. Only then you see this compassion, this Divine Compassion, which has drawn you into this. This is called the Melekut. This is a very high thing. When I first heard about these things and all these words, I can remember how I took them, as if it were something one could know about. But as year after year passed, the more the perspective grew deep and long for me, the more I saw the immensity of this step which enables one to enter into this forecourt of God's presence. We talk about these things, but if you could know how few people can come to it. Not that it's not the will of God that they should, but that we people have entered into such a state of existence, we've become so much the slaves to every kind of experience that beckons to us, that each time we get caught. You may think, but how can people want to be caught in this state of being under this power. Ah yes, but the time comes when things are very different, when there begins to be in this state of Jebberut quite a different kind of experiencing, a certain solidity, a certain assurance, that is very alluring. One thinks, now I have acquired something, now I am beginning to be something, and we say this, 'After fana, baqa', and we say, 'This is the experience of fana; now I know what baqa is', but believe me, there are so many deceptive baqas, so many deceptive resurrections. How many times I've said to myself, 'I am being born again; now I am rising from the dead', and what did I see? The same man rose again. He never really died. It is then, when you see how many ways we can deceive ourselves. You know, the first deception as I say, is this believing in visions and ecstatic experiences, the opening of 'cosmic consciousness', the complete transformation of everything. The second is one where one begins to feel that there has been death and resurrection in oneself and that something has really happened. And one doesn't see that this is simply a deeper illusion now. If anyone is able to free themselves from the illusion that they have anything, anything at all of their own, that there is any reality other than that, if you can free yourself from this, then for a moment everything changes and you have that experience that there is a quite different God from the one which you ever dreamt of. Quite different and who can't be spoken of any more. You know, that not only can't be spoken of, but there's no longer a sense of a power working or something like this. No longer can anything that you ever said be said any more. That is the threshold, that is the beginning for those who come to it. In Sufism we then say, this leads to the final annihilation, the fana-i-dhat. Everything disappears. Not only oneself, but the world and God all disappear. Then we say this is Hu. We say: this is huwiyet. Huwiyet is the word for a state. The state when that which came from the Source has re-entered the Source. That state is for Sufis the way of speaking of the end, the final liberation from everything that separates.

Now, how are these things possible? We've got instruments; eyes and ears and the rest, to know about this external world. We've got minds to think about this world. We've got minds to think and make pictures and form concepts of other worlds, and we don't see that these minds have their source, not in anything above or higher. They have no future, no destiny. They are simply the instruments of this world. It is hard for us to accept the idea that the mind must be annihilated, that everything we have that thinks, that feels, that knows, that sees and hears, all these are the instruments of imprisonment within this world. It happens, tomorrow morning early I am off to India, to take part in the celebration of the hundredth anniversary of Sri Aurobindo's birth. I mention Aurobindo because he was a great prophet of this time and his great message was the message of what he called the Supramental, and he spoke of the 'descent of the supramental at this time'. A clumsy kind of word, but it is an important thing, because he at least got over to a large number of people that our human mind is a totally inadequate instrument for arriving at any real understanding. That it is only when it is possible to plunge beyond the mind that anything happens, and it is this moment of plunging beyond the mind that reveals to us this, what we call, 'cosmic consciousness'. But how do we have this 'cosmic consciousness', if it's not possible for our minds to have it? Because we have other instruments. Because we are not created just with a mind. This is a cheap instrument, this human mind. Cheap in terms of the path to reality. It is not cheap for this world. It gives us immense power in this world, it enables us to dominate in this world; but it is cheap when you look at the other world. But we people were not intended just for this. So we've been given instruments. We've been given an instrument, which is able to live and enter into this second world, this, what we call Jebberut, the 'Alemi Erwah, the world of spirits. We have a spiritual perception. We have to awaken these spiritual perceptions.

They will awaken in us partly through the intense need that one begins to feel when this first shows itself to us, the intense need to be able to experience this other reality, and not only to experience it. This is in the long run, or not very long run either, utterly dissatisfying. One cannot accept merely to see and not to possess what one loves. So that is the first thing. This is where your patron Ibn 'Arabi was a great teacher. He taught the necessity for man to awaken and strengthen and learn to use and live with these finer instruments. He achieved it himself and he brought many, many people to the conviction that this is indeed possible for us. You musn't think that you can enter purgatory with this body and mind. If you want to enter that world, this Jebberut, you have to enter it with your spiritual nature, not with your natural self. But this spiritual nature of ours is in dire trouble. Don't think that just because we have a spiritual nature, that this spiritual nature has only to be awakened and released and it is already able to find its goal. No. Our spiritual nature is tainted, tainted with our own egoism, tainted with our own illusions, tainted with our craving for existence, our holding on to externals. All this is in the spiritual nature, not only in our physical nature. There has to be awakened in us the instrument, the spiritual instrument that can see how it is with us, and that is a very great suffering. But, it is also, as this spiritual instrument of ours begins to awaken and we begin to see that the realities are so extraordinary, that everything else ceases to matter. Only one thing, to possess that.

Then comes the time when yet another instrument, a higher instrument still, an instrument that is not spiritual but Divine, an instrument that is leant to us, or given to us, or somehow we're drawn to it. I don't know how to speak of that. But this Divine instrument then allows us to go beyond all this and see that the whole of this existence is nothing. This is nothing but a shadow, a play. Then comes quite a different kind of thing, quite a different kind of opening. This has to be.

Why do I say all this to you? Because I wanted, when I asked if I could come and speak to you, I wanted to say one thing only to you, but I had to prepare all this, and that is that I want to ask you to have an unlimited respect always present in you for the word Hu. Sometimes I suffer when I hear the word Hu, the syllable Hu, used lightly. I must tell you, because I am no friend of yours if I don't speak to you truly.

You know that for many many years I didn't dare to pronounce the word God. There were some words that I couldn't bring myself to pronounce, the word God, the word Love, I just couldn't bring to my lips, because I felt so far away from them. Then little by little, I don't know whether because I have grown hard and callous, or whether because I have penetrated more deeply, God knows, but I began to use these words. I try to use them with deep respect. But of all words, the one perhaps of all sounds, the one to be most respected is the word Hu. Because it stands for everything. It stands for that which is in every breath we breathe, and it stands for the source which can only be reached by complete annihilation of everything, because it is beyond all existence, beyond all being. You will have to use the word, but I came here to beg you to remember, that you have chosen the holiest syllable that there is and if you've done that, you've taken on yourself a great responsibility. If you treat it without this respect, it is sacrilege. It is only the fewest of the few, the rarest of the rare who actually come to the reality of Hu. The very great chosen ones, chosen and sent; messengers. Only they can really say the word Hu. Those who come directly from the source and will return to the source. They know what Hu is. So you must forgive me if I speak in that way, and I did ask permission to do this. I was not invited. I thrust myself on you in that way and I came because this power which must be obeyed, al Muti, who must be obeyed, made me come. There is within us all this power. But to be able to listen to and be obedient to that power, we must put aside all visible and thinkable things.

From Intimations, which contains the complete collection of talks given by J.G. Bennett at Beshara Swyre Farm; published by Beshara Publications.
J.G. Bennett

John Godolphin Bennett (1987-1974) was a British mathematician, scientist, technologist, industrial research director, and author. He is perhaps best known for his many books on psychology and spirituality, and particularly the teachings of G.I. Gurdjieff. Bennett met Gurdjieff in Istanbul in 1921, and later helped to co-ordinate the work of Gurdjieff in England after Gurdjieff's arrival in Paris. He also was active in starting the British section of the Subud movement, and co-founded its British headquarters.

The culmination of his life's work was the founding in 1971 of the International Academy of continuous Education at Sherborne, Gloucestershire. Here, pupils from all over the world joined in a remarkable experiment in adult education, based on John Bennett's extraordinary experience of techniques for the transformation of man.

It was during this time that John Bennett used to give talks at the then Beshara Centre at Swyre Farm, only a few miles away from his Academy at Sherborne. These talks are collected in Intimations, which is published by Beshara Publications. From Wikipedia and other sources

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Support The Love For Life Campaign, Kindom & The Cristian Family

Supporting The Love For Life Website, The Cristian Family and The Living Dream Of Kindom (Creation Of Do No Harm Communities) - The Love for Life website is produced for free without a fee (no contract or conditions attached) as a gift of love for the benefit of others. If you feel you have gained something from visiting it, feel inspired, and would like to reciprocate as an equal exchange in substance and support (value), you are most welcome to make a gift of love to keep it and the dream of Kindom going. As always, we thank you for your gifts of love.

PAY PAL

We Stand For NO SYSTEM

Kindom (Do No Harm Communities) is the dream for freedom, but it is the dream for the freedom of those around us who also live the dream of freedom, because it is in living for the freedom of others that we get our freedom. When we live for the dreams of Kindom of those around us, we live life as a gift because we live for (dedicate our lives to) their dream of freedom, truth, peace, joy, abundance, etc, just as they live for our Kindom dreams too. This is true co-creation (cooperation) with no attack on the uniqueness of each of us. When we live this way, we have no need for any man-made system - everything/everyone has already been taken care of by our love for life.

Just as we do not have to jump 10 feet across the room to grab our next breath, neither do we have to worry about food, water and shelter because it has all been taken care of as we each co-create Kindoms/Kin-Domains for everyone. Now everybody and everything of the dream of life that is Kindom/Paradise is free (has been set free once again). The issue is greed and selfishness, power and control trips, arrogance, ignorance, being fed many many lies and being traumatised. The issue is not overpopulation - there is more than enough land available for every family to have a hectare (2.5 acres Kin-Domain) to care for. The land of Australia can provide a Kin-Domain for every family across Earth, each with a food forest, clean fresh drinking water and plenty of space for building natural do no harm habitats and with plenty of land left over.

Everyone must have the freedom to take full-responsibility for their lives, for the water they drink, the food they eat and for their shelter. Currently, "The System" forces everyone to give up taking full-responsibility so that we become grown up children accustomed to sucking on the nipples of "The System" corporations for everything, having to use money to get by and to follow the rules of money because we are not co-creating freedom, peace, truth, joy and abundance for each other. Money only leads to haves and have nots and all the abuse, manipulation and distractions that we are subjected to as slaves to money.

When we give up living for other's Kindom dreams, we start creating hell ("The System") all around us because we become self-centred - now it's all about "my freedom","my money", "my land", "my belief", "my saviour", "mine", "mine","mine", "i","i", "i", "own", "own", "own", etc. To protect what we claim we own requires a man-made system with FORCE to protect those self-centred claims. This is ALL trauma based and all story-telling (brainwashing/braindirtying).

NO SYSTEM = KINDOM/DO NO HARM COMMUNITIES

Our true freedom comes when we set our thoughts of freedom into motion so that we live freedom rather than just talking and thinking about it while we still slave for "The System". Kindom will not happen while we meditate for hours in the bush or do yoga retreats or wait for Jesus or follow the processes of the OPPT (One People's Public Trust now called One People). This is not freedom because we are not living freedom because we are living the story-telling of Jesus or Zeitgeist or The Secret or Thrive or One Earth/Consciousness/People.

Living Kindom is very, very hard work as we set about repairing the damage to MAN/Earth/Nature that we are ALL responsible for but the burden becomes lighter the more of us put our life-energy into the dream of returning Earth to Paradise. Day-after-day, we all have to work our arses off until Kindom is all around us (MAN) once again. This is the price we pay to set each other free on a piece of land (Kin-Domain), so that no one is under the image-power (education/brainwashing/story-telling) of another MAN anymore and so that everyone can have their space of love to create and live their unique, do no harm dreams. This only happens once we have the Kindoms set up so that everyone is provided for.

Once we re-create the food forests, whether on land or in the suburbs, we can re-claim our freedom, breaking the strangle-hold of "The System" because we are no longer reliant on its services and benefits and no longer turning each other into slaves of "The System", cogs in the wheels of "The System" machine. If we don't put the effort in to set everyone and everything free all around us then we still live in HELL ("The System"). The key is to live for everyone else's freedom so that we can have it too.

We live for NO SYSTEM. We do not lose anything by not having a man-made system and, in fact, we gain. We gain our freedom and we gain abundance. Let go of the fear.

A Collection Of Various Love For Life Posts
Providing The Big Picture We See

Sequential Order

We ask you to NOT believe anything we say/share and instead use scrutiny like an intense blow torch and go where the logic of truth/sense takes you. This is very, very important. Put everything you believe up to the test of scrutiny to see how it stacks up. If you are true to your heart/senses and go where the logic of truth/sense takes you will find that NO belief, etc, will stand up to the test of scrutiny. They just do not stack up because they are lies/fraud.

After you have watched and read all the material and any questions are left unanswered, send us your landline number and we will use the internet phone as a free unlimited call. We are on Sydney NSW Australia time. Best times for us to chat are between 11.00am and 6.00pm.

It is critical that you fully comprehend Image Power, "Spelling", Trauma, Reaction To Trauma, Curses, Processing Curses, Full-Responsibility/Liability, Limited Liability/Responsibility (passing-the-back), Slavery, Senses/Sense vs Non-Sense/Senses, Re-Presenting Intellectual Property such as but not limited to "Name", Storytelling/Storytellers, Duality, Black-Magic, Belief, Lies, "i", All Seeing "i" (eye), etc..... These themes and others are covered over and over and over again.

If you do not comprehend these insights and are unable to use your senses to sense your way through all the non-sense/non-sensory-images that enslave MAN under their image power (darkness = "The System" = Hell), men and women will remain deeply trapped under a terrible state of trauma. Our intention is to inspire you to remedy by showing you how to move away from reacting to trauma in all its nefarious and devious forms.

The "Name" Is The Mark Of The Beast
The Strawman Identifying
Your Slave Status In "The System"
By Arthur Cristian - Love For Life
5th February 2012 - 56 Minutes 25 Secondshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdOag66v7uo

IMAGE POWER
The Nefarious Tactics Used
To Disguise Truth And Distract Us
From Remedy
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
24th January 2014
This post contains many recent Facebook comments
and email replies which collectively provides a big picture
into exposing the deception behind IMAGE POWER.http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8496

E-MAN
The Name Of The Beast Is MAN
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 9th May 2014 Includes Mountain MAN Arrested
Facebook Discussion About "Name"
Uploaded 25th June 2014http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8528

Discussion With Brother Gregory
Clearly Demonstrating Christianity
Is Part Of The Problem
And Not The Solution
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
Between the 12th May 2014 and 30th August 2014http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8542

The Most Powerful Video On Spirituality
And Happiness FOR SLAVES
Or
How To Accept Slavery And Be Happy About It
Arthur Cristian - Love For Life
6th August 2014
Facebook Discussion About The Work Of Eckhart Tollehttp://loveforlife.com.au/node/8548

What Can We Do What Can We See
Arthur Cristian - Love For Life
A series of Arthur Cristian Facebook
posts and discussions
between 17th and 21st November 2014http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8552

The Misuse Of Love By Intel Networks
To Create Doubt And Uncertainty
With The Intention To Destroy Love
And Therefore Destroy MAN
(True Freedom, Peace, Joy, Abundance And Truth
For Everyone)
By Arthur Cristian - Love For Life
26th November 2014http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8554

Darkness Visible Part Three
How The Word Sausage
Re-Presents The New World Order
Boiling Point & Out To Get Us
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
27th December 2014http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8560

Darkness Visible Part Four
Aleister Crowley - Thelema - OTO
And The Black Magic Psychedelia Of The Intellect
Facebook Discussion
4th to 10th January 2015http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8561

Darkness Visible Part Six
The Many Fingers Of The Hidden Hand Appearing
YouTube Community Flagged A Video
Posted To The ArthurLoveForLife YouTube Channel
As Being "Hate Speech"
Fiona Cristian & Arthur Cristian
Love For Life
4th February 2015http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8563

Darkness Visible Part Seven
The Full Responsibility For Setting
True Freedom For All Into Motion
In Present-Sense Forevermore
Fiona Cristian & Arthur Cristian
Love For Life
10th February 2015http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8564

What Do You Believe On Origins?
Who Said There Was A Beginning?
Who's Truth Do You Accept?
Belief Is A Strange Idea.
Discussion Lyndell, Scott and Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Between March and April 2013
Posted 29th October 2013http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8487

Control The Land
And You Control MAN On The Land
Displace MAN From Land
And You Turn MAN Into Slaves
Arthur & Fiona Cristian - Love For Life
April 2011 (Updated 14th September 2011)http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8237

Peaceful Transition Through Sacrifice And Service

We feel there is an essential peaceful do no harm transition required to get all of MAN back to standing on MANS feet without reliance upon another MAN for water, food, shelter. As it stands everyone in "The System" are highly dependent and reliant on the "group mind-set" that forms "The System" of slaves providing services and benefits for the emotionally addicted slaves to "The System" (and you can put us in the same basket too). The transition is to get MAN back to relying ONLY on nature without 3rd party interlopers, intermeddlers, interceders getting in the way. The transition is a team effort with the foresight for setting all of MAN free down-the-line so that MAN is no longer dependent on slaves and masters providing services, benefits, privileges and exclusivity while being bound to contracts, rituals, procedures, conditions, rules & regulations which compromises MAN severely.

This transition is all about shifting from limited liability/responsibility to full liability/responsibility. This full responsibility is all about caring for our health, nature all around us, clean uncorrupted (pure) water and food, partner/co-creator, children, shelter, animal-friends in partnership, etc. In "The System", we are already together destroying each other - we have to come together to create peace together so that we can all have peace. We cannot live peacefully when we are islands, not taking full responsibility for the lives of those around us until EVERYONE can take full responsibility for their life, which means that EVERYONE is healed of system trauma. In "The System", we all come together to make slaves of each other - now is the moment to come together to set each other free, to live for each other's freedom, peace, joy and abundance. Once we have set each other free, we are free.

Control The Land
And You Control MAN On The Land
Displace MAN From Land
And You Turn MAN Into Slaves
Arthur & Fiona Cristian - Love For Life
April 2011 (Updated 14th September 2011)http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8237

Once we fix these issues, we or our children or our descendants to come, can start focusing on the even bigger picture of getting back to where our ancestors were, as breatharyan's, before they fell into non-sense images to be enslaved by them.

All the best to you and your family
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life

The Cristian Family Declaration

The Cristian family and The Love for Life Campaign are apolitical, non-religious, non-violent, anti weapons, anti drugs (both pharmaceutical and recreational) and anti any ideology that denies the existence of Do No Harm Communities (Kindoms) and suppresses the uniqueness and freedom of all men, women and children.

The Cristian family and our Love For Life work is unaligned to any big business corporation, intelligence agency, government body, "system" law, "system" think tanks, "system" green or environmental movements, religion, cult, sect, society (fraternity, brotherhood, sisterhood, order, club, etc,) secret or not, hidden agenda, law or sovereignty group, occult, esoteric, New Age or Old Age.

The Cristian family supports and promotes the remedy that brings an everlasting peace, freedom, truth, joy, abundance and do no harm for all of life without causing loss of uniqueness or the need for having slaves and rulers. We are not into following the one in front or being shepherds for sheeple. Most importantly, we take full-responsibility for everything we think, feel and do.

The Cristian family are not Christians.

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life

December 2006

THE CRISTIAN FAMILY PLEDGE

Being of clear brain, heart and intention, we each declare the following to be true:

• We have no intention of ending our own lives.

• We will not tolerate suppression of truth, ideas, freedom, or our work. We stand for freedom of speech.

• We stand together to support others in the expression of truths and freedom to speak out no matter how radical those ideas may seem.

• Standing for freedom takes courage; together we shall be strong in the face of all odds.

• If it is ever claimed that we have committed suicide, encountered an unfortunate accident, died of sickness/disease, disappeared, been institutionalized, or sold out financially or in any other way to self-interested factions, we declare those claims false and fabricated.

• We testify, assert and affirm without reservation, on behalf of all those who have dedicated their lives to the ending of secrecy and the promotion of freedom of thought, ideas and expression that we shall prevail.

Update Regarding The Love For Life
Home Page And Quick User Guide

We are turning the Love for Life Quick User Guide http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6608 into a blog of all the main insights of our work since March 2005, whether through articles, videos, podcasts or discussions/debates.

As we do not have the time to compile everything we have written into a book, as many have suggested we do, compiling all our most important work into one area of the website is a way of providing easy access to this work so those interested are able to fully comprehend the big picture.

Love For Life Videos

As amateurs and posted in the Quick User Guide below the Facebook links, we're currently creating and posting a series of videos called "The Dream Of Life" which covers the ground of all the Love For Life insights. We plan to have the videos completed by December 31st 2012. Once this is behind us, our intention is to create a 2 hour or so video covering the body of this work. All videos are embedded in the quick user guide http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6608 and uploaded in Arthur's YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/ArthurLoveForLife.

About Us - Love For Life & The Cristian Family

Also, everything we, the Cristian family, have gone through, from bank fraud and the theft of the family home to death threats and attempts on Arthur's life, is documented in the Quick User Guide too. If you, the reader, are prepared to put the effort in, you will comprehend the extent to which we have all been tricked into becoming slaves, giving up our uniqueness and our full-responsibility for life and destroying everything of life to the point where life is in danger of dying out completely. You will also comprehend the remedy to all this chaos; a remedy that requires only love for life and the determination to do what needs to be done. Though our focus is very strongly on the remedy that creates a world of freedom, truth, peace, joy, abundance and Do No Harm for all of life without loss of uniqueness or the need for slaves and rulers, we realise that it is vital to comprehend how to get there and what stops us from getting there. This is why there is so much information on the hows and whys of everything going wrong in the world today. We are not into peddling conspiracy theories, we are into routing out all forms of organised crime.

1. For The Body Of The Love For Life Work by Arthur and Fiona Cristian

Which Unravels The Reasons For The Chaos, Mayhem and Confusion Being Experienced In The World Today, Explains The Need For "Community Immunity" and Responsibility, and Focuses On The Creation Of Kindoms - Do No Harm, Life-Sustainable Communities (As The Remedy That Heals All Mans Woes) - And How We Can Co-Create Them. For Comments, Articles And Discussions, Go Here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/3385 - Also Go Here To See Podcasts And Videos Posted by Arthur & Fiona Cristian: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/7309 - The Information Shared Comes From Inspiration, Intuition, Heartfelt-Logic And Information Gathered From Nature And Many Amazing Men And Women Along The Way. It Is Not Found In Any Books Or Channellings, Or Talked About By "Experts". Go Here To Read A Brief Synopsis Of Why We Started Love For Life: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8182

5. If You Would Like To Read About The Cristian Family NSW Supreme Court Case

(Macquarie Bank/Perpetual Limited Bank Fraud Condoned By Judges, Registrars, Barristers, Lawyers, Politicians, Public Servants, Bureaucrats, Big Business and Media Representatives - A Crime Syndicate/Terrorist Organisation) Which Prompted The Creation Of This Love For Life Website December 2006, And The Shooting And Torture Of Supporters Who Assisted Us In Reclaiming The Family Home, Joe Bryant And His Wife, Both In Their Late 70's, go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/5 And Read Some Of Our Email Correspondence With Lawyer Paul Kean - Macedone Christie Willis Solari Partners - Miranda Sydney May 17th-June 27th 2006: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/7300

6. For The Stories Of Other Victims Of The System,

7. For Documentation Of Harm Done By The Powers-That-Be And Their Representatives,

Evidence Revealing How Victims Did Not Break The Peace, Caused No Crime or Harm, There Were No Injured Parties. Documenting Incontrovertible Evidence Demonstrating How The Powers That Be (PTB) And Their Lackeys Will Break All The Laws They Are Supposed To Uphold. They Will Kidnap, Intimidate, Terrorise, Rape, Pillage, Plunder And Lie And Take Responsibility For None Of It. All Part Of Their Tactics Of Using Fear And Trauma To Keep Us In Our Place. Relatives Of Those Under Their Radar Are Also Not Safe From Attack And Intimidation. All Starting From A $25 Fine For Not Voting And A $65 Fine For Not Changing A Dog Registration. We Do Not Have Freedom And Can Only Appear To Have Freedom If We Comply. Regardless How Small The Matter The PTB Throw Hundreds Of Thousands Of Dollars Away To Enforce Their Will.... Go Here:
Fiona Cristian Reply To State Debt Recovery Office - Part One to Part Ten - From 17th October 2008 And Still Continuing:http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6319 or Fiona Cristian Reply To State Debt Recovery Office Part One: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/5742 - From 17th October 2008 Part Two: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6135 - From 18th December 2008 Part Three: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6295 - From 9th January 2009 Part Four: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6296 - From 14th January 2009 Part Five: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6375 - The Sick Puppy - From 20th February 2009 Part Six: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6390 - Police Officers, Sheriff’s Officers, Tow Truck Driver and State Debt Recovery Office Blatantly Ignore the Law To Rape, Pillage and Plunder The Private Property Of Fiona Cristian - From 11th March 2009 Part Seven: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6445 - Affidavit Of Truth - Letter To The Queen + Australia: Fascism is Corporatism - From 30th March 2009 Part Eight: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6652 - The Pirates Auction And The Ghost Of VSL386 - From 4th April 2009 Part Nine: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/7073 - Arthur Cristian's Letter To Pru Goward MP - From 15th December 2009 Part Ten: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/7500 - Should We Be In Fear Of Those Who Claim To Protect Us? "Roman Cult" Canon Law - Ecclesiastical Deed Poll - The Work Of Frank O'Collins - From 13th October 2010

8. If You Are Interested In Information On Freedom From Statutes, Rule-Of-Law, Free Man/Free Woman, Strawman, "Person" and Admiralty Law (The Law Of Commerce),

Love For Life Legal Disclaimer

The information contained on this world wide web site (the web site and all information herein shall be collectively referred to as "Web Site Information"), under the registered url name, loveforlife.com.au, resides on a host server environment in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15203, United States of America.

The Web Site Information has been prepared to provide general information only and is not intended to constitute or be construed as providing substantive professional advice or opinion on any facts or circumstances. Transmission of the information is not intended to create, nor does its receipt give rise to, a professional-client relationship between 'Love for Life' and the receiver.

While every care has been taken to ensure the accuracy and timeliness of the information prepared and/or reported on this site, 'Love for Life' is not responsible for any errors or omissions or for the Web Site Information not being up to date. The Web Site Information may not reflect the most current developments.

The impact of the law, policy and/or procedure for any particular situation depends on a variety of factors; therefore, readers should not act upon any Web Site Information without seeking professional advice. 'Love for Life' is not responsible for any action taken in reliance on any Web Site Information herein.

'Love for Life' is not responsible for any action you or others take which relies on information in this website and/or responses thereto. 'Love for Life' disclaim all responsibility and liability for loss or damage suffered by any person relying, directly or indirectly, on the Web Site Information, including in relation to negligence or any other default.

'Love for Life' does not warrant, represent or hold out that any Web Site Information will not cause damage, or is free from any computer virus, defect(s) or error(s). 'Love for Life' is not liable to users for any loss or damage however caused resulting from the use of material found on its web site.

'Love for Life' does not necessarily endorse or approve of any Web Site Information linked to and contained on other web sites linked herein and makes no warranties or representations regarding the merchantability or fitness for purpose, accuracy and quality, of any such information.

The sending of information by you, and the receipt of it by 'Love for Life', is not intended to, and does not, create a professional-client relationship.

All Web Site Information is considered correct at the time of the web site's most recent revision.

ADDITIONAL DISCLAIMER

THE CRISTIAN FAMILY SUPPORTS
FREEDOM OF SPEECH - FREEDOM OF THOUGHT

Note: Updated Wednesday 17th June 2009 8.00pm Sydney Time.

Love For Life does not support harm doing in any shape or form. However, we are supporters of free speech so we post articles, documentaries, etc, that represent a wide cross section of ideas. See the Love For Life extensive research library where there are over 11,000 individual documents, articles, videos, podcasts and debates/discussions are posted: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/82. We clearly see the evidence of the destruction to MAN and Earth that has been caused by ALL religions over the centuries and are therefore not supporters of religions, cults, sects or any group that demands conformity of thought, speech or action, or has rules, regulations or rituals that must be followed. Religions, nationalities and cultural "identities" are formed as a result of the brainwashing we receive from childhood. They are part of the tactics the Establishment uses to keep us all divided from one another and fighting one another.

All religions promote discrimination and division, leading to hatred and even violence and murder. None of them have yet to produce a remedy to all the suffering, poverty, unhappiness and discrimination in the world. If any religion truly had the remedy to all the suffering on earth, there would no longer be any suffering. What have Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, atheism and the New Age done to end the suffering in the world?

Freedom Of Speech - Freedom Of Thought

Since December 2006, there have been many attempts to take down the Love For Life website. Any attempts have been thwarted by Love For Life supporters inundating the harm-doers with emails, etc, objecting to them taking down the website for a variety of reasons. The trouble makers usually back off when they realise that they can post all their views, arguments, beliefs, etc, in the Love For Life website without censorship or restriction imposed. They get to see that even the Queen, Pope, Prime Minister, President of America, etc, can post all their views without hindrance or sabotage and that we support freedom of speech/thought which means we support the right of all sides to express their views.

Of note, there is a vast amount of information posted in the Love For Life website which we do not agree with but we leave it all up because we refuse to be biased, opinionated or self-centered/self-serving. Of the many thousands of comments posted over the years we have only removed posts containing secret links to commercial advertisements, terrible foul language, threats of violence and death, etc, and attacks on other people's characters that avoid the subject/debate at hand. Besides links to advertisements, we have taken down less than six comments due to the above. We usually leave everything up, all warts and all, even those posts threatening to do terrible things to Fiona, our children, our dogs, our friends, family & supporters, etc.

The Love For Life website has information from all sides on many subjects, whether about Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Law, health, psychology, mind control, vaccination, aspartame, MSG, Chemtrails etc. There are over 11,000 individual articles, documentaries, podcasts, etc on the website and they are so diverse that we are sure that everyone would be able to find something they loved and something they hated, if they took the time to search. If we removed all the articles hated by everyone, there would probably be nothing left! We are not anti anyone but freedom of speech is freedom of speech and no one should condemn the work of another without taking the time to research the subject themselves. Yes, there are articles by those who have a less-than-rosy-viewpoint of Judaism, but there are also articles on the dark side of Tibetan Buddhism (and it is very dark) for those who are interested in the truth: Tibet - Buddhism - Dalai Lama: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6271 Should the authors of these articles be abused and imprisoned for daring to challenge the widely conceived reputation of Buddhism as being the religion of peace and love and that of the Dalai Lama as a saint, or should those interested be allowed to study the work and come to their own conclusions? The same applies to all the articles, documentaries, etc, about Christianity, Islam, Freemasonry, New World Order, etc.

The Love for Life website also shows how the Rule of Law, the Bar, the Government, the Monarchy, the system of commerce, the local, national and multi/trans-national private corporations, all the courses and careers on offer from our universities, all the educators, scientists, academics and experts, the aristocrats and the Establishment bloodlines have also done NOTHING to end the suffering in the world. The website maps the insanity of a world where there is no help for those in need, just as there was no help available for us when we were victims of terrible bank fraud: http://loveforlife.com.au/court_case orchestrated, condoned and protected by an international crime syndicate/terrorist organisation of judges, barristers, registrars, lawyers, politicians, banksters, big business representatives, media moguls and other lackeys who, all together, put up a wall of silence despite our trying many, many avenues. After the family home was stolen and business destroyed we were left close to poverty and destitution caring for 4 young daughters. Three years later not much has changed regardless of all our efforts. Where were all the followers of all the religions to help us? Or do we have to be members of those religions to receive help from others involved in them?

The New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies accused us of being anti - Jewish, see: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6616 and http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6665 because we had posted an excerpt from James von Brun's book: Kill the Best Gentiles! http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6054 in which he blames Jews for the problems of the world. Obviously this is not our view because of what we have stated above. We do not hate anyone, whatever religion they follow. We are always open to talk to any religious leader or politician and meet with any judge, member of the Bar, experts, academics, educators etc to share the remedy we offer that heals all the divisions between MAN and MAN, and MAN and EARTH.

Today, a representative of the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies is threatening to close the website down, because they have decided it is anti - Jewish and that we promote racism. What has the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies done to end the suffering in the world? Can they show that they are concerned with the suffering of ALL men, women and children AND ARE SEEN TO BE DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT or are they only concerned with Jewish affairs? If so, they, along with all the other religions that only care for their own, are part of the problem, not part of the solution. The man who rang Arthur today was only concerned with Jewish affairs; he was not interested in our intentions or in anybody else, just as most Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, Catholics, etc, are only interested in their own. While we separate our lives into groups, dividing our lives from others with rules, regulations, rituals, procedures, conditions and contracts, we will never solve our problems.

No matter what we in the Western World Civilisation of Commerce have been promised by our politicians, religious leaders, scientists, educators, philosophers, etc, for the past two hundred years, all we have seen is ever-increasing destruction of men, women and children and Earth. None of the so-called experts and leaders we have been taught to rely on are coming up with a solution and none of them are taking full-responsibility for the fact that they can't handle the problem. All religious books talk about end times full of destruction and suffering but why do we have to follow this program when there is an alternative to hatred, mayhem and death? Why are our leaders following the program of destruction and death rather than exploring the do no harm alternatives? It seems that any mainstream politician, priest or academic are only interested in supporting the RULES OF THE DIVIDE, that maintain the haves and the have nots. For 200+ years, 99% of the world population have been so trained to pass on their responsibility for their lives, others and Earth, that the 1% of the population that make up the leaders of the rest of us are making all the decisions leading to the destruction of all of us and Earth. Let's not forget the education system that brainwashes the 99% of the population that we are free and have equal rights while, in fact, we are feathering the nests of those at the top.

At the root of all our problems is self-centredness, an unwillingness nurtured by the Establishment that keeps us concerned only with our own needs rather than the needs of others around us and Earth. Instead of creating and releasing acts of love for those around us as gifts to benefit them and Earth, we take, take and take, until there is nothing left. The whole point of the Love for Life website is to show people the root of all our problems and to share the remedy. The extensive research library is there to attract browsers and to provide access to information not available through mainstream channels. If the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies can, after careful examination of our work, prove that anything we are saying is wrong, we will be happy to accept their proof. If they cannot, and they are still insistent on closing the website down, they will be showing themselves to be traitors to MAN because they are not interested in pursuing any avenue that can end the suffering in the world.

All religions, corporations and organisations that support and maintain the Western World Civilisation of Commerce are part of the problem because our civilisation is a world of haves and have nots, exclusivity, privilege, racism, violence, hatred, poverty, sickness, discrimination, abuse, starvation, homelessness, corruption, collusion, vindictiveness, social unrest, arrogance, ignorance, fear, war and chaos. While we support civilisation, we support death and destruction.

Conscious Love Always
Arthur and Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
17th June 2009

Clarification Regarding Our Intentions
Behind The Use Of Donations

The Love For Life website is offered for free without a fee and without any conditions attached. If people are inspired to donate money, then we accept their gift and have provided an avenue for them to support the work we do through Fiona's Paypal or ANZ bank account http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8515. There is no obligation whatsoever to donate and all are equally welcome to our work and to our "time", whether they donate or not. Over the last 9 years, all the Love For Life work has been put out for free and it has often been donations from supporters that have enabled us to renew the domain name, etc, to keep the website going. While some complain that we have an avenue for donations, others complained when we didn't! Either use it or don't - the choice is yours.

Since Love For Life started March 2005 and website December 2006, Arthur has worked 16 hours a day, 7 days a week unpaid for much of this period, putting together the website and sharing insights to wake people up to what has been done to them, whether through the 11,500+ individual articles, videos, podcasts, debates, discussions, pdf's, research documents, etc, found amongst the 8,500+ posts, as well as helping many, many men and women over the phone, and through email, website correspondence, Facebook and YouTube, and creating the Love For Life food forest vege garden and Love For Life music recording studio. This is our life is a gift commitment to serve MAN/Nature/Earth but we are still severely compromised by "The System" and still have to give to Caesar what is claimed to belong to Caesar, which is where the donations help us.